Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GOODGE STREET) BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That in the case of the London Underground (Goodge Street) Bill (Lords], Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Belfast (Development)

Mr. Baldry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the proposed public spending commitment to develop the city centre of Belfast.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): Although a complete picture is not available of public spending commitment in Belfast city centre, I can say that Government policy is to concentrate on building up the private sector through providing urban development grant and public sector infrastructure improvements. This policy has led to private sector investment of £90 million in the last three years, with a further £80 million already committed. The cost to the Government urban development grant in the last three years has been £14 million, and a further £16 million is currently on offer.

Mr. Baldry: Are not the very exciting potential new shopping and other developments in the centre of Belfast yet further evidence of the determination of everyone in Britain to see Belfast flourish as a European city? Will my hon. Friend make arrangements early in the next Parliament to organise an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall showing the proposed new developments in Belfast? I suspect that many hon. Members would be very excited if they also could see what is proposed for that city.

Mr. Needham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Of course, I shall have to ask the electors of Wiltshire, North to ensure that those arrangements can be made early in the next Parliament. On current form, I think that they may accede to his request.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The regeneration of Belfast is going ahead despite the problems there, which we all know about. The people of Belfast are showing just

how determined they are to live ordinary normal lives, and there is a great show of new development, new plans and new progress, which, I think, gives hope for the future.

Security

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the latest security situation in the Province.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Since I answered questions in the House on 9 April, 22 people have died as a result of the security situation. They included Sir Maurice and Lady Gibson, four policemen, and one member of the UDR. The figures also include eight terrorists, shot in an attack on Lough,gall RUC station, and one person in Belfast believed to have been killed while carrying explosives. Since the beginning of the year a total of 154 people have been charged with serious offences; 88 weapons, 3,660 rounds of ammunition and 6,048 lb of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland.
I also understand that since 9 April the Garda Siochana has recovered some 1,360 lb of explosives and 1,000 rounds of ammunition, as well as certain weapons and miscellaneous equipment.

Mr. Latham: Following that sombre statement, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he saw on television last night the deplorable sight of masked gunmen at funerals on both sides of the border? Will he confirm that whoever stands at the Dispatch box as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in a month's time will be wholly committed to an unrelenting fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is my firm conviction that the sights that caused him such offence caused equal offence to the overwhelming majority of people in the island of Ireland. The events of the past few days have brought out very clearly the condemnation throughout Ireland, both north and south of the border, of the men of violence—whether it be from the Nationalist community, in the forthright statements of the hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), from the Church or from the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic. It is symbolic that most of their activities now take the shape of funerals, whether they be of their victims or of their own perpetrators of violence.

Mr. Hume: Does the Secretary of state agree that when lives, no matter whose lives they are, are lost in Northern Ireland it is particularly distasteful that there are always those who will gloat over the loss of life and see death as some sort of victory? Does he agree also that it is particularly distasteful when politicians do so, because that only feeds the bitternesses and the hatreds that ensure that death will occur in the future? Does the Secretary of State further agree that the most powerful statement in the past 12 months was made at the weekend by Mrs. McCartan, the mother of an innocent 17-year-old who was the victim of a sectarian murder, when she shouted. "Stop," and appealed to all sides to stop the killing?

Mr. King: I well understand the feeling with which the hon. Gentleman comments, particularly as he has been the victim in the past week of mindless and most unpleasant


violence, directed against him and his family. The whole House respects the courage with which he discharges his responsibilities against very evil men indeed.
The tragedies of the terrorist outrages, which confirm the terrorists' ability to kill—there is no question of their ability to commit such outrages—and the whole pointlessness of it, which has been brought out clearly by others, not least by Bishop Cahal Daly and Mr. Lenihan, demonstrate that, whatever the cause they espouse, the use of violence advances that cause not one iota but is counter-productive.

Sir Adam Butler: May I first congratulate the security forces on their recent successes? They have had a very difficult time, particularly in recent months. Therefore, one or two of their recent actions are highly commendable. My right hon. Friend referred also to the achievements by the Garda. I wonder whether he can say anything further about the development of cross-border co-operation between the security forces? He will recollect that, shortly after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I stressed that the agreement would commend itself to Unionists if cross-border security improved. That point remains as valid today as it was then. There can be no doubt that, without the defeat of terrorism, without the ending of conflict and bloodshed, and without lifting from the people of the Province fear and the sense of insecurity, the problems of Northern Ireland cannot be solved.

Mr. King: Before answering that question, may I add my personal regret that I fear that this may be the last time that my right hon. Friend will make a contribution in this House. I know what a loss so many hon. Members feel that in future we shall not have the pleasure and the value of his contributions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear. hear."]
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments about the efforts of the security forces. In view of fairly wild speculation, I think that I should make it quite clear that the events of last Friday night were the consequence of a number of steps that we have been taking to seek to improve the security of police stations against a number of attacks, particularly attacks against police stations of a rather "softer" nature, and that what was prevented was quite clearly a deliberate attempt to murder two policemen. It was a very determined attack indeed. We were extremely fortunate not to suffer serious casulties among the security forces. I recognise that they managed to resist very effectively, but there is no question but that the responsibility for the casualties lies exclusively with the IRA, which launched such a futile but dangerous attack.
As for co-operation with the Garda Siochana, others may have seen last night the events to which my right hon. Friend referred—the incidents surrounding the funeral of one of the terrorists and the hatred that the IRA also shows to the Garda Siochana. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend will have noted that I included those statistics in my original answer. They show something of the contribution that the Garda Siochana is seeking to make to defeating what is an evil, whether it is north or south of the border.

Mr. Bell: We on this side of the House associate ourselves with the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). We who aspire to stand at the Government Dispatch Box after the election will follow the policy of Her Majesty's Government in giving full support to the security forces in Northern

Ireland. We recognise that we face a long, long haul to combat the hatred, animosity and bitterness which are converted into a sad litany of death and destruction, and we support the Government in their recent measures. We, too, regret the fact that 22 people have died and others have been injured, but we welcome the fact that those responsible have been charged and will stand trial. It is right at this stage in our proceedings to associate the Opposition with the Government in their security policy on Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 4—Mr. Brown.

Mr. King: Perhaps I might just answer the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), Sir.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the resolute position that he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) have taken in support of the fight against terrorism. This is an appropriate moment at which to make that absolutely clear.
I add that the statistics for the year, which underline the futility of terrorism, include a number of INLA members accused of shooting each other, as well as the terrorists who lost their lives in recent events. That shows what a tragedy of death and destruction terrorism brings with it. The House will also be aware that, tragically, in the attack launched by the IRA at Loughgall, an innocent passer by and his brother were caught up in the tumult. One of them died and the other was very seriously injured. The whole House will share my concern and distress at the death and injuries suffered and at the tragedy suffered by the men's family, which was entirely the result of this appalling IRA attack.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the Secretary of State. We shall return to this matter again on question No. 7.

AOR1 (Completion Date)

Mr. Nicholas Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest forecast cost to completion of the AOR1 vessel and how this compares with Harland and Wolff's original bid; what is the latest profit forecast for the contract and how this compares with the forecast assumed at the time it was awarded; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I regret that I cannot provide details of either the original projections of cost and profit in respect of the AOR veseel or latest projections, as this is commercially confidential information.

Mr. Brown: That answer will not come as much comfort to the people of Tyneside, and I am sure that the Minister understands why. Two thousand shipyard workers on Tyneside lost their jobs because the Government chose to award the contract to Harland and Wolff, with an assurance that there was to be no public subsidy. Can the Minister repeat that assurance and, in particular, can he assure us that the Northern Ireland Office and the Government will hot pay the interest on bringing the profits forward on AOR1, but that that interest will be paid from Harland and Wolff's own resources?

Mr. Viggers: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest and the support for private enterprise reflected in his


remarks. The commercially based assumptions made by Harland and Wolff in arriving at the tender price were reviewed by independent consultants, who confirmed that the tender was unsubsidised and comprehensively costed. The hon. Gentleman's repetition of his question adds no merit to it.

Belfast (Retail Premises)

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total area of retail premises in the city of Belfast which has been the subject of planning applications dealt with by his Department in the last three-year period for which figures are available.

Mr. Needham: The figures for total area of retail premises are not available, but since 1980 nearly 700 planning applications for retail development in the city of Belfast have been approved. That includes the recent approvals in Belfast city centre for the Castlecourt shopping complex of 345,000 sq ft, and one of 105,000 sq ft in Castle place. The Castlecourt development due to start later this year involves investment of £60 million, with Government backing of £10 million-worth of urban development grant. The people of Belfast are at last getting the range and quality of shopping that they deserve.

Mr. Yeo: Further to one of my hon. Friend's earlier answers, is he aware that many of his hon. Friends—and, indeed, many other hon. Members—look forward to his re-election to the House? Is he further aware that the city of Belfast offers outstanding investment and development opportunities and that many investors and developers from the mainland are very favourably surprised when they learn of the returns that they can achieve by investing in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes and I shall make sure that they are properly passed on to the electors of Wiltshire, North. He is absolutely right that there are tremendous investment prospects for Belfast which are not always understood by people on this side of the water. I am grateful to him for bringing that to the attention of the House, because the more we can get people to come to Belfast to see the conditions there for themselves, the more they will be pleasantly surprised and be prepared to put their money where their mouths are and develop the city in a way which the people deserve and which will benefit their shareholders' returns.

Mr. Archer: The Minister will understand if I do not join the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) in extending good wishes to him.

Mr. Tom King: The Labour party has no interest in north Wiltshire.

Mr. Archer: We have an interest in the total outcome. May we be permitted to join in the well-deserved congratulations to Belfast on its determination to return to normality? Is it not true that it is a city where affluence and squalor exist side by side? Is there not a need to ensure that all citizens share in its success? How many successful planning applications have there been in the Shankhill in the past three years, and how many in the Falls?

Mr. Needham: I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the exact figures, but I am wholly aware of the need to ensure that the prosperity is spread throughout Belfast. The Brookfield development under Father Myles

Kavanagh has been a major success in the Andersonstown area and we are supporting major investment in the Beltex development in the Ardoyne. I can assure him that the Government will do everything in their power now and from June to assist in developments in the deprived areas of Belfast. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of the Belfast city initiative and the fact that city action teams have been set up specifically to assist the poorer areas and to allow the communities to feel that they are involved in the development of the city. The Government accept that without that it would be more difficult to develop the city on behalf of everybody.

Security

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to improve cross-border security; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the most recent position on cross-border security.

Sir John Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security co-operation.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We are constantly seeking ways of enhancing security co-operation between ourselves and the Republic of Ireland and we aim to implement as quickly as possible the programme of measures under article 9(a) of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Security co-operation was one of the subjects discussed with representatives of the new Irish Government at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 22 April, and at the next meeting we shall be reviewing progress and discussing proposals for further developing co-operation. Recent events have further underlined the need to ensure that such co-operation is as close and effective as possible.

Mr. Bruinvels: As many of Leicester's sons are serving in Northern Ireland, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on their determination to improve security in Northern Ireland? Whether it is true that additional forces and troops have been sent there, I know not. Will my hon. Friend reassure all hon. Members that the co-operation and determination that have been shown by the Secretary of State are being reciprocated and reinforced by those on the other side of the border?

Mr. Scott: The foundations have been clearly laid for much improved security co-operation through consultation between the police forces and between Ministers. Indeed, there have already been manifestations of that improvement. On both sides of the border we look forward to enhancing that co-operation in the future.

Mr. Spencer: Does my hon. Friend agree that we shall get better security only through the activities of the Governments on either side of the border and through the full co-operation of the people living on each side, and that those who incite their followers not to co-operate are undermining their security?

Mr. Scott: That must be so. I hope that people throughout the island of Ireland will be increasingly aware of the futility of the actions in which the IRA is engaged. As the Tanaiste said in a debate in the Dail on Tuesday


evening, the armed struggle is increasingly unacceptable to a majority of the Irish people. I hope that that will become increasingly clear and will manifest itself in support for the security forces north and south of the border.

Sir John Farr: Is my hon. Friend absolutely sure that the link between north and south is secure, by virtue of co-operation between the Garda in the south and the RUC in respect of cross-border car journeys? I am not asking my hon. Friend to refer to the tragedy recently when a distinguished member of the Northern Ireland judiciary was killed, but very often travellers from the south entering the Province are escorted by the Garda as far as the border and, as soon as they get over the border, there is no sign of the RUC. Will he look at this again and make sure that not only is there a suitable link-up, but that there is a safe and secure link-up between the two forces?

Mr. Scott: As I said in the debate on security last week, these are operational matters for the RUC. It has to be careful that it does not establish some pattern of movement across the border, particularly on well-traversed routes, which may lay it and members of the RUC open to attack by terrorists. I am absolutely sure that this is being tackled by the Chief Constable and by the RUC command in a flexible and intelligent way, and in a way that reflects close co-operation between the Garda and the RUC.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister agree that when distinguished persons are travelling by road between Dublin and Belfast they should not be abandoned in no man's land, whether they are travelling by road or by rail? I refer particularly to rail journeys, because the same thing happens with them at present.

Mr. Scott: I know that the hon. Gentleman has another question on the Order Paper. In case that question is not reached, may I say how much we have admired his contributions to discussions on the subject. He will be sadly missed, personally if not politically, in the next Parliament. We wish him well with whatever he turns his hand to when he leaves the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Of course we recognise the importance of the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Co-operation between the railways, both in the Republic and in the north, and the security forces, is very close, as is co-operation on the security of road links between the two parts of the island.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Minister confirm that his military advice is that there is no military solution to the security problem in Northern Ireland and that gloating over the deaths of eight alleged terrorists and the killing of an innocent man is as likely to inflame the situation as to improve it? What plans has he other than pure security measures to improve life in Northern Ireland to reduce the likelihood that young men will go off and join military organisations?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady has not heard any gloating from me, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or from our colleagues. I regret every life that is lost in Northern Ireland, not least because of the futility of it when there are constitutional and political routes open for people to pursue, whatever cause they espouse within the island of Ireland. It is absolutely futile, and nobody gloats when young people lose their lives. I understand that, if we are to have a solution to the

problems of Northern Ireland, the relationship within Ireland and between Britain and Ireland, politics, economics and security all have their role to play. In Northern Ireland the Government are committed to tackling each of those problems as constructively as possible. However, as long as the IRA carries on its vicious and sustained campaign, security will have to play an important part.

Mr. McNamara: I wonder whether the Minister of State can help us, because, in some of the briefings from his Department, and possibly from the Ministry of Defence, we were given to understand that those eight men had been under supervision, that the farmhouse where they collected their high explosives had been watched for some time, that there was only one access road into the village where they tried to carry out their most evil crime and that they were surrounded by the security forces. In those circumstances, why was it not possible to pick up the men beforehand? Why, if they were surrounded in the circumstances in which we have read in the newspapers—if those reports are accurate—was not a megaphone, a searchlight or something of that nature used to give them an opportunity to surrender?

Mr. Scott: I shall say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, he should not believe all that he reads in the newspapers, nor should he identify, as he thinks, the source of what appears in the newspaper. Secondly, this whole incident will be the subject of a detailed investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and, as in any incident in Northern Ireland in which people lose their lives, the papers will be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I advise the hon. Gentleman to await the outcome of those inquiries.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Turning to the main subject of the question, are the two Governments any closer to marking out a zone on both sides of the common frontier in which the security forces of the two countries can operate freely and in partnership? Where there may be deficiencies in material, technique or training on the other side of the border, are Her Majesty's Government ready to give whatever assistance may be asked of them?

Mr. Scott: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. Discussions are held largely between the professionals, the policemen on both sides of the border, to seek to find ways in which they can co-operate and exchange the experience and skills of the two police forces. As necessary, they will be supported by officials and, indeed, by Ministers in due course. My hon. Friend's point about some sort of corridor along the border raises more fundamental questions about sovereignty that have not yet been raised in discussions between the two Governments.

Housing (Heating Costs)

Mr. O'Brien: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has as to the cost in use of individual coal fires, as compared to the exising district heating schemes in the Sandy Row and lower Newtownards areas and the Sandy Row estate; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Needham: As the answer contains a number of figures, I shall with permission, Mr. Speaker, arrange for it to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Has he read the report of a survey carried out by people attached to the University of Ulster? That report was published last October on this very subject and shows comparisons between district heating schemes and individual units in the various estates. If he has read the report, will he consider the issue of value for money as between the comparable solid fuel district heating scheme and the individual units? Will he also consider the value to the tenants and the savings to the Housing Executive, because the card procedure for purchasing heat before it is used is economic and of value to everyone concerned?

Mr. Needham: Due to the overwhelming desire of the House to hear the figures, I shall give them now rather than circulate them. The comparative costs at Sandy Row are £8·30 for district heating and £5·06 for solid fuel heating. The figures for the Newtownards road are £8·40 compared to £6·08 and at Cromac £9·87 compared to £8·17. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will understand that all these factors will be taken into account before we come to a decision.

Horse Markets

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to the number of horse markets in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Viggers: No regular weekly or monthly horse sales exist. Sales are occasional in nature, usually being at local fairs or sales on owners' premises.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no horse like an Irish horse for racing, riding, driving or for any other purpose? Does he further agree that though the sales methods for horses in Ireland are somewhat different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom, the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommended standard should be applied at those sales, and that horses should be given treatment equal to that given to cattle?

Mr. Viggers: These matters are under the vigilant eye of my noble Friend Lord Lyell. I have no doubt that he will take such action as is necessary should cases of abuse occur. However, no cases of abuse of any kind have been reported from any source and we are currently satisfied with the regulations.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stephen Ross.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Pass, Mr. Speaker.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Other hon. Members may wish to take part.

Mr. Ross: No. 14, Mr. Speaker.

Security

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security co-operation between the United Kingdom and Eire.

Mr. Scott: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to a question by my hon. Friend, the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) earlier today.

Mr. Ross: I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his kind remarks about me and I wish him well in his continuing job in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Scott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dickens: Does the Minister appreciate that when we have successful security operations, such as the most recent, or when terrorists are apprehended, it is often found that the criminals are among those who escaped from the Maze prison? What recent steps have been taken to ensure that we never have a repetition of terrorists escaping from the Maze prison and then being able to kill people as a consequence?

Mr. Scott: It would be a bold Minister who stood at the Dispatch Box and guaranteed the total security of any prison establishment anywhere in the United Kingdom. Following the escape from the Maze in 1983, Sir James Hennessy produced a report with many recommendations, which have been implemented progressively. There is no doubt that security has been substantially enhanced at Her Majesty's prison Maze and the lessons have been applied to other prisons in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cash: With reference to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on discrimination against Catholics——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is wide of the question.

Mr. Cash: With reference to this question, does my hon. Friend agree that as we come up to the general election this is a time for requesting those who take part in political activities in Northern Ireland, on cross-border security or other related matters, to ensure that there is no unnecessary hostility on the basis of religious bigotry? This is a time for people to consider the political situation, not racial or religious prejudice.

Mr. Scott: I endorse what my hon. Friend implies in his question. I assure him that within the security forces in Northern Ireland, whether in recruitment, promotion or training procedures, there is no discrimination whatsoever against Catholics. Steps have been taken to ensure that that is so.

Mr. Stanbrook: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), is it not a fact that recidivism among those convicted of terrorist offences is vey high? Therefore, should we not consider introducing powers to enable the courts of Northern Ireland to sentence offenders convicted of terrorist crimes to imprisonment for the duration of the emergency?

Mr. Scott: We are conducting a study at the moment into the degree of re-involvement in terrorist activity of those who have been convicted of terrorist-type offences. There is some superficial evidence that re-involvement exists to a certain extent, but, unless my hon. Friend has evidence to show that it is particularly high, I advise him not to jump to too many conclusions on that front. I would be most reluctant to consider a procedure which moved away from treating those who have been convicted of terrorist-type offences as criminals within Northern Ireland and dealing with them according to the law. The IRA and its supporters whould love us to treat those convicted of terrorist-type offences as some sort of prisoners of war. We will not do that. They are criminals.


As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, a crime is a crime is a crime, and those who commit those crimes should be treated accordingly.

Public Employment

Mr. Hume: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration he has given to the relocation of public employment in areas of high unemployment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Scott: Policy on Government office accommodation is under review at present. The review is considering the most appropriate siting of Government offices, taking account of the need to locate them where they can most effectively provide services to the public.

Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that if the Government are to be taken seriously about their intention to promote fair employment in Northern Ireland, the one area under their control where they can make a major contribution is the redistribution of public employment? With new technology it is no longer necessary to centralise such employment. Will he explain why, with such a simple matter as training centres, only limited skills are available in areas of highest unemployment, such as Strabane in my constituency?

Mr. Scott: Over 40 per cent. of non-industrial civil servants in Northern Ireland are located outside the Belfast area. Many other major public sector bodies are sited in various parts of Northern Ireland. The health and education hoards and other bodies are, by definition, scattered round Northern Ireland and provide employment in the public sector.
We are taking a careful look at the Civil Service deployment pattern. Any move will have to be measured against the service to the public and the efficiency of the public service as a whole. We must bear those two things in mind when we come to a conclusion.
On the question of training centres and training within the further education sector, so far as possible we shall seek to ensure that services are demand-led. Where there is a demand for services they should be provided, consistent with economy and efficiency. We shall examine both those aspects in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way to combat high unemployment in the Province is to reduce terrorism, because the only way to reduce high unemployment is through private sector investment? Does he agree that the private sector will not invest until the threat of terrorism has been eliminated?

Mr. Scott: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The pattern of unemployment in west Belfast, in parts of Derry and Strabane and elsewhere reflects the IRA's hypocrisy when it complains about unemployment among Catholics in those towns and cities, yet we know that it has contributed more than any other single factor to that unemployment in Northern Ireland.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the issues discussed at the last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference.

Mr. Tom King: I last met Irish Ministers at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 22 April. We discussed security co-operation and measures aimed at promoting equality of opportunity in employment. Details are set out in the joint statement issued after the meeting, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. At this stage in our parliamentary proceedings, may I say how much I appreciate the courtesy of the Secretary of State and his colleagues over the past two years when dealing with Northern Ireland matters? May I assure the Secretary of State that after 11 June, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and I are standing at the Government Dispatch Box, he will receive the same courtesy from us?
Will the Secretary of State take note that as a future Labour Government we shall give full support to the Anglo-Irish Agreement? We reaffirm that commitment now and look forward to the first Intergovernmental Conference in the new Parliament.

Mr. King: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, although I did not particularly enjoy his second point. I believe that all elections in the early stages are founded on a fine degree of fantasy among Oppositions. The hon. Gentleman will find the reality at the hustings. After the election I look forward to the hon. Gentleman, in opposition, showing the same consistency in support of the Anglo-Irish Agreement as he has so far.

Mr. Gow: Has the Intergovernmental Conference addressed its attention to the question whether it is possible to govern one part of the United Kingdom differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, and differently from the way that it has been governed before, without the consent of a majority of those who are to be governed differently?

Mr. King: No, Sir. The government of any part of the United Kingdom is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and this Parliament. This is entirely our affair. There has been no change. I know that my hon. Friend holds a different view, but I maintain positively that there has been no change whatsoever in Ministers' responsibilities and that there has been no change in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom or its Parliament.
I respect the Government of the Republic of Ireland's views. I am interested in listening to their views and value them. The events of recent days—the evidence on the television screens—of the problems that the IRA poses for the Republic of Ireland, as well as for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, are clear enough confirmation of the very close identity of interest that we have in the defeat of terrorism.

Wages

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what number and proportion of workers in Northern Ireland were paid less in 1979 than the Council of Europe decency threshold; and what are the latest available figures for workers in this category.

Mr. Viggers: There is no such thing as a Council of Europe threshold for a minimum acceptable level of earnings.

Ms. Short: The Minister is absolutely wrong. The Council of Europe has set down a decency threshold,


which is reommended right across Europe. In Britain it would represent £126 a week, or £2·40 an hour. In the whole of the United Kingdom 8·8 million people are paid less than that, and I understand that in Northern Ireland that proportion is much worse. Indeed, the incidence of low pay, as with unemployment, is much worse in Northern Ireland. I am disgusted that the Minister has nothing to say about this serious question.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Lady is wrong. No such proposals have ever been endorsed by any member state, by the Council of Europe or by its governmental committee on the European social charter. If the hon. Lady wishes to put down any specific question on numbers she is, of course, at liberty to do so. However, first it will be necessary for her to win the seat of Birmingham, Ladywood, which, judged by current events, must be regarded as marginal.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Tim Yeo: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extremely encouraging fall in unemployment announced this morning represents further evidence that her Government's policies of sharing the fruits of economic growth between cuts in income tax, cuts in public borrowing and cuts in interest rates, together with selective increases in public expenditure, are the right policies for Britain for the next five years?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the figures are encouraging. They show that unemployment is on a downward trend. They also show that the number of jobs is rising, and that sound financial policies, private enterprise and incentive taxation are a winning combination.

Mr. Kinnock: When 750,000 people are on hospital waiting lists and some people have waited for more than four years for operations, is not the right hon. Lady's claim that the Health Service is safe in her hands a sick joke against sick people?

The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman complains that waiting lists are too long. The fact is that Labour Governments have presided over [Interruption.] increases in waiting lists and Conservative Governments [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Labour Governments have presided over increases in the waiting lists, but Conservative Governments have cut them. Between 1964–70, under Labour, waiting lists increased by 85,000. Between 1974–79, under Labour, waiting lists increased by nearly 250,000. By contrast, between 1970 and 1974, under the Conservative Government, waiting lists fell by 31,000, and since 1979 the waiting lists have fallen by 70,000.

Mr. Kinnock: Both in terms of the numbers on waiting lists and in terms of the waiting time on waiting lists, the Prime Minister is misleading the House—[Interruption.] In both cases, after eight years in government, the figures under the Tory Government are 15 per cent. higher than they ever were under Labour Governments. Is it not obvious that if the right hon. Lady or any of her loved ones had to wait on a list for treatment under the National Health Service she would have a different view of the pain and anxiety suffered by those who do?

The Prime Minister: As I have shown, not with rhetoric, but with facts, Labour Governments have presided over increases in the waiting lists and Conservative Governments have cut them. The number of patients being treated under this Government has increased. There are almost 1 million more patients in hospital per year. Patient services have also increased. The number of heart bypass operations has tripled, perinatal mortality has been reduced by more than a third, the number of hip replacements has gone up by a quarter and the number of cataract operations has gone up by a half. That is our record.

Mr. Kinnock: When the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians, the Select Committee on Social Services and, indeed, all patients who use the Service and the people who work in it say that the Prime Minister has never made the proper commitment to the National Health Service that is required by modern needs, is it not obvious that there is not so much a shortage of money as an absence of morality on the Prime Minister's part?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman talks about a shortage of money. The day that I went into 10 Downing street, £7·75 billion a year was allocated to the Health Service. Today that figure is £21 billion a year, giving a very much better Health Service and a very much better standard of care.

Sir Ian Percival: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, however hard the Leader of the Opposition may try, and whatever they are praying for in Moscow in the next few weeks, millions of people in the United Kingdom will be praying that she will be given the health and strength to continue to give the magnificent lead that she has given to us all for eight solid years? Whatever hon. and right hon. Members opposite may say, that, and her personal input of ideals, ideas and effort, and those of her Governments and the people of this country, have enabled the people of this country to regain their confidence, their self respect, a place in the world and the real prospect of a better future. provided that we return her to No. 10 Downing street four weeks today. God bless her.

The Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and assure him that I have never felt fitter.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware that since 1979, full-time employment opportunities for young people have fallen by one third? Will she now reconsider, as a matter of urgency, the cuts in benefits for young people, and act to cancel the restrictions on accommodation and finding homes for young people, so that they have the independence to find work?

The Prime Minister: Unemployment among those under 25 years old fell by more than 80,000 in the year to January, and, in fact, the unemployment rate for under 25-year-olds in the United Kingdom is fortunately below the average for our major European competitors. Even so, it is too high, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the extensive measures taken under the youth training scheme and the new job training scheme to try to match training to jobs for which people cannot be found.
With regard to housing, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until the manifesto comes out. There are still certain controls which are not conducive to finding private rented property.

Dame Jill Knight: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last Friday the Labour Opposition deliberately blocked a Bill that would have stopped very young children in our schools from being encouraged to grow up as homosexuals? Will she give an assurance to the House that, in the next Parliament, she will, in legislation, protect both children and the concept of the family?

The Prime Minister: I know of my hon. Friend's great concern for protecting family life, and I congratulate her on her promotion of the Bill to which she has referred. No one voted against it, and I think that it was a great pity that it did not complete its passage through the House. The Government supported her objectives. I hope that she will bring the Bill back before the House when she returns and that it will then go through both Houses.

Mr. Buchan: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Prime Minister recall the appalling statement that was made by the Secretary of State for Employment on 12 February, when he said on "Newsnight":
I lose no sleep about unemployment."?
On the eve of an election, the right hon. Lady having been Prime Minister for eight years, leaves us with 3 million unemployed, despite the figures having been fiddled 19 times. Will she come to my constituency and tell the 7,000 there who have become unemployed as a result of her activities over the past eight years that she endorses the statement of the Secretary of State for Employment?

The Prime Minister: I know of no such statement, and I wish to make that perfectly clear. As the hon. Gentleman has made an assertion, I hope that he will attempt to adduce chapter and verse, which I think he will find extremely difficult to do. Business produces new jobs, and it is a necessity to have an economic policy that produces thriving businesses, without overmanning or restrictive practices, that use the latest technology. We have steady economic growth, and that is good for future jobs.

Mr. Spencer: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Spencer: As the hon. Member with the smallest majority, might I wish my right hon. Friend the best of luck? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, under her leadership, Leicester has become once more a great city of enterprise that is bursting to return three Tory Members?

The Prime Minister: I know that all my right hon. and hon. Friends wish my hon. and learned Friend well and hope that he will be asking a similar question shortly after the beginning of the new Session. I know Leicester well. It has always had varied industries and I congratulate it on the level of enterprise and on the increasing number of jobs that it is providing for its people.

Mr. Bidwell: In the coming election campaign, will the Prime Minister promise to disown any candidate who tries to stir up enmity between white and black people?

The Prime Minister: All those who are here for permanent settlement have the same rights and the same responsibilities, and we must continue to make that clear.

Mr. Greenway: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is to the eternal credit of the teaching profession that so many of its members defied recent union pressure to strike and decided to put the education of children first? Has not a great deal of this to do with recent Government action, and has not the time come for the Government to put in hand radical measures to change the running of schools?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that parents are grateful to those dedicated teachers who have insisted on putting the children first throughout a time when others have gone on strike. Our new pay arrangements are designed to give just such teachers higher pay. When the manifesto appears, I hope that my hon. Friend will be pleased about it. It is designed to give greater choice, power and influence to parents in the education of their children.

Mr. Hume: When the Prime Minister told the House last week that the director of the security services had conducted an investigation into the allegations against MI5, she did not make it clear whether that investigation embraced allegations about Northern Ireland, such as infiltration of paramilitary organisations, the commission of murder and attempts to discredit public figures, including myself. Will she tell me whether the investigation included that, and will she also tell me the outcome of it? By the way, when she next speaks to the director, will she tell him that if he ever finds that forged bank account that is attributed to me I shall halve it with him.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I made a very full statement last week and I have nothing to add to it.

Sir Fergus Mon: tgomery asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Following the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North


(Mr. Greenway), does my right hon. Friend agree that children also have rights, as well as teachers, and that children have been badly affected by the industrial action that has occurred in our schools in the past few months? That time will never be made up. Will she pay tribute to the good teachers who have refused to obey the dictates of their union bosses?

The Prime Minister: I gladly pay tribute to all those most excellent teachers who regard their first duty as the education of their pupils. Parents throughout the country are very grateful to those teachers. The new pay arrangements are designed to give those teachers greater promotion and greater incomes than others.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether she read an article which appeared in her favourite newspaper, the Daily Mail, a few weeks ago under the heading, "Who takes the prize for champion liar …?" Since that publication, it would appear that President Reagan and his team are well ahead in the race. When the Prime Minister goes on television——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a well-known rule that we do not make accusations by attribution. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to do that.

Mr. Lewis: I have made no accusation, I am quoting from the newspaper.

Mr. Speaker: But that is accusations by attribution.

Mr. Lewis: I do not intend to make any accusations against anyone. When the Prime Minister goes on television during the election, will she confirm to the British public that never at any time in the past seven years has she ever told a single lie?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has looked at the replies that I have given from the Dispatch Box and found them accurate to the very level best of my ability.

Mr. Speaker (Members' Farewells)

Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make. In view of what was said on Tuesday about hon. Members desiring to have an opportunity to bid me farewell, which I much appreciated, I wish to inform the House that I will be in the Chair at the close of business tomorrow to shake the hands of hon. Members, especially those who are not standing for re-election.
I shall be at home in Speaker's House on Monday next between 12 noon and 1 pm. I would welcome the opportunity, on that occasion, to offer refreshment and good wishes for the future to hon. Members who are retiring, and I say to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) that no one will be turned away.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after the statement.

Mr. Faulds: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order in their usual place. Nothing arises on my statement.
Later ——

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is more in the nature of an RSVP than a point of order, and I am sure that you will allow me to make it. It was extraordinarily kind of you to issue such a privileged invitation to me for these small drinks—[Interruption.]—perhaps large drinks—on Monday. I shall be responding to you privately about that, with great gratitude for your extraordinary and unique invitation.
However, on the question of the cancellation of the prorogation, do you not agree, as I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the House would agree, that it would be more fitting if in future the wishes of this House and its Speaker were considered rather than the lazy inclinations of the other place and its chairman?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I should be careful about giving my hon. Friend open invitations to your place, Mr. Speaker. You never know, he might just sus it out for the future.
On the question of the prorogation——

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Dissolution.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, dissolution. May we have it stated openly, before anyone else puts his foot in it, that the ceremony was stopped in 1979? It did not happen in 1983, and the lack of it is not something new for 1987.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to express an opinion. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) once wisely advised me not to do so. However, such ceremonies have good historical reasons and act as a reminder of many of the past struggles of those who have been before us in this place. It would be a matter of regret if we were to let them go.

Airbus A330/A340 Projects

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Government's policy on the question of launch aid for British Aerospace's participation in the airbus A330/A340 projects.
After discussion with British Aerospace, I am glad to tell the House that agreement has been reached that up to £450 million in launch aid will be provided to enable the company to participate in the airbus A330 and A340 projects. This launch aid will be fully repayable on terms designed to yield an acceptable return in real terms on the Government's investment. At this stage our support is conditional upon our partner Governments also making the arrangements that are necessary to enable their manufacturers to participate in the projects.
At a time when the competitive pressures in the world aerospace industry are as strong as ever, I would like to praise the determination of Airbus Industrie and its partners to extend their family of large airliners.

Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that the Labour party is wholeheartedly in support of British Aerospace and the airbus programme and that our attitude towards his statement is that it is better late than never? Will he confirm that, whereas the package amounts to £450 million, British Aerospace told the Government that it needed £750 million. and therefore it follows that the Government are helping British Aerospace to the extent of less than two thirds of what it needs?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that the French and German Governments are to provide more than two thirds of the development costs incurred by their aerospace industries in connection with the airbus programme? Will he admit that, when the money runs out, it will be almost inevitable that thousands of men and women who work for British Aerospace will follow their Westland colleagues into unemployment?

Mr. Channon: I am extremely surprised at the hon. Gentleman's grudging support for the announcement. He said that it is better late than never. I do not know how he can describe it as late. We are the first Government to announce a desire to give launch aid for participation in the project. Frankly, the idea that it is late is ridiculous.
The French and Germans have not offered any money so far, so it would be most unwise of me to speculate about how much they will offer for the costs of the project. I am sure that the project will be a great success. British Aerospace and the Government have been holding constructive talks for some time. Both the company and the Government are satisfied that what I announced today will enable their essential objectives to be achieved. My announcement will help to create and maintain about 10,000 jobs. I should have thought that the House would have welcomed it.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Waldon): My right hon. Friend's statement will be widely welcomed in British civil aviation. It is an extremely important boost to British

Aerospace in general, which has been making an ever-greater contribution to Britain's trade balance. Will he confirm that the Government are committed to the group of aircraft that are proving to be world beaters?

Mr. Channon: I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the group of aircraft and also the achievements of British Aerospace and the aerospace industry in general. After all, last year, aerospace industry exports reached nearly £5 billion, which was 12 per cent. up on the figure for 1985. There were orders of some £8 billion, 60 per cent. of which were from overseas. The industry is one of Britain's greatest national assets, and the Government are determined to support it.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the Government on the announcement. It is welcome on the Opposition Benches, even if it took the imminence of a general election to bring it forward, with perhaps rather more money than was previously forecast. May I take it that the money is adequate for British Aerospace to participate fully in its 20 per cent. stake in the airbus project?

Mr. Channon: It is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that the imminence of the general election brought about the announcement. We had to make the announcement by 11 June because of the Paris air show, which begins on that date. [Interruption.] I expect that other announcements may be made. British Aerospace is convinced that it will be able to participate fully. I am certain that it would not have agreed to participate in such a way if it had not been so convinced.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents, trade union officials and others in the Stroud area will be gratified by the news? I also speak on behalf of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope) who, because of his position, cannot easily speak about those who work at Filton.

Mr. Channon: It is good news for Filton and all those who work there, and it is also good news for British Aerospace in general.

Mr. Bruce Milian: Will the Secretary of State say whether there is any provision in the agreement that he reached with British Aerospace for the use of the Rolls-Royce V2500 Superfan as and when that engine becomes available for the A340?

Mr. Channon: We will have to await Rolls-Royce proceeding with that and putting forward proposals for this engine to go into that programme. It would be premature to give the right hon. Gentleman an answer at present.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): My right hon. Friend's announcement is welcome. Does he agree that, far from foot-dragging, our Government are proving to be a catalyst to more effective European aerospace collaboration in securing a whole family of European airbuses that can compete fairly and squarely with Boeing and McDonnell Douglas in the world market? Is not the investment cost-effective, particularly when one considers the repayment terms which will be required from Her Majesty's Treasury?

Mr. Channon: Yes; it is a good investment. I think it is cost-effective and is a very good example of European collaboration. It will be good for the industry, for British Aerospace, and for the taxpayer.

Mr. George Park: Will the Secretary of State accept that his announcement, although welcome, may have the effect of creating difficulties for other projects which British Aerospace is funding without aid?

Mr. Channon: I do not see why that should be so. If British Aerospace had not wanted to participate in this project, it would not have agreed with the Government on this announcement. The Government and British Aerospace are in full agreement on the announcement. Therefore, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he has in mind a special point, perhaps he will get in touch with me.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Can he please tell the House what obligation he has put on British Aerospace to support the rest of the British aerospace industry in the orders and sub-contracts which it will place? In particular, why is there no support for the British equipment industry in this project?

Mr. Channon: I know that my hon. Friend takes a deep interest in the whole industry and in the equipment suppliers. Of course, they are eligible to apply under various schemes and we will consider all cases on their merits. Obviously we have not had any applications yet. On the A320, the British equipment suppliers got a good share of the business. I hope that that will be the case in this project also.

Mr. James Lamond: May I also welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State on behalf of hundreds of constituents and thousands of members of the trade union which sponsors me in Parliament who were fearful of joining their colleagues on the dole queue if the announcement had not been made?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that this is a loan which will have to be repaid because the project is likely to make a great deal of money? Also, in restricting the amount that he is prepared to give to £450 million, does not he agree that other projects being considered by British Aerospace must be in jeopardy because, despite the fact that it has accepted the proposal made by the Minister, it will have to go to the market to find the remaining £300 million?

Mr. Channon: Launch aid is repayable. It is not a grant; it is not a subsidy. The intention is that the principal sum advanced should be repaid in full, together with an adequate return during the life of the programme.
I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on the other part of his question. The Government and British Aerospace are satisfied that the launch aid that I have announced today will enable the central objectives of the company to be achieved. It is clearly necessary to safeguard the interests of taxpayers, and British Aerospace properly wishes to safeguard the interests of its shareholders. Both sides are satisfied. I see no reason to complain about the proposal.

Sir Patrick Wall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend whose announcement will have a good effect

in my constituency. Is it not £100 million more than was in question when the original negotiations took place? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is wholly for the airbus project and not for any other project such as HOTOL?

Mr. Channon: This is launch aid entirely for the A330 and A340 projects. I do not want to go into all the details of the negotiations with British Aerospace, but I think that it is well known that there have been talks on different sums at different times. Both sides are satisfied with this announcement. I am glad that my hon. Friend has spoken about this because I know of the great concern in his constituency which I was happy to visit a little while ago when I had discussions about this very matter.

Mr. Jack Straw: Since many of us, on behalf of constituents working in British Aerospace factories, including those at Salmesbury, Preston and Wharton in Lancashire, have been in correspondence seeking pledges from the Government over many months for launch aid, is it not the case that both the amount of the aid and the timing of the announcement have been dictated by the anxieties of Conservatives in marginal seats? The Minister says that this money is to be repaid with a rate of return. Is it not a sad reflection on the City that British Aerospace is unable to obtain long-term investment funds for this project save from the British Government?

Mr. Channon: I do not think that that is true at all. Very large sums in funding have been committed to the project by British Aerospace itself. The characteristics of civil aircraft programmes are long development and payback periods, and the level of risk exposure means that the close involvement of Governments is a factor in many countries. It is appropriate for an element of Government support to be given. This is in no way to suggest that the City's support should be criticised. The amount is agreed with British Aerospace, so I cannot understand why any hon. Member should wish to disagree on that point.
I have made an early announcement because I thought that that was in the interests of the company and those who work in it and also because I expect that a firm decision will have to be taken by other Governments during the course of the next few weeks; and, frankly, I thought that the House of Commons had a right to he informed.

Sir Peter Emery: On the matter of competition, will my right hon. Friend confirm that as long as the French and the German Governments make contributions in line with the contribution of the British Government and he can give an assurance that there should be major success with these two aircraft this should be published not only to the House of Commons but also to those companies that originally placed provisional orders for these aircraft in order that the necessary assurance can be given to them to overcome the approaches of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, which obviously would like to see the provisional orders removed from these aircraft going to the American companies'? It is most important that something should be done on these lines.

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am very hopeful that our partners in France, Germany and Spain will also wish to participate in this programme. Indeed, I


am certain that they will. I believe that substantial sales can be achieved. It is extremely significant and encouraging that there are commitments from nine airlines for the A330 and the A340 totalling 128 aircraft and that these have been obtained in advance of a formal commitment to launch the programme. The House will also be aware that there are orders and options for the A320 numbering 442 with almost a year to go before that aircraft enters commercial service.

Mr. David Young: Will the Minister please assure the House that he will keep under review financial support for British firms in the civil aviation industry so that in all ways, commercially and industrially, we back these firms and enable them to maintain the leadership which they have now established in the industry?

Mr. Channon: I think that our actions speak louder than words. We have indeed supported this industry. I agree with the hon. Member about its great importance; the British aerospace industry is now the second largest in the world. It is one of our most flourishing industries and I am looking forward to supporting it still more in the next Parliament.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which seems to me to underline our commitment to the concept of a European civil aircraft industry and therefore is keeping faith with our European partners. Can he give any estimate of the additional work which may be generated for British industry from these two projects?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with him about the signal that this will give to the European civil aviation industry in general.
I think that this will maintain or create some 10,000 jobs in the aerospace industry in this country. It will provide very substantial job opportunities and a very substantial amount of work. I hope that it will provide a substantial amount of work for equipment suppliers and, indeed, for many other suppliers further down the line who will have the spin-off from that. It is a very big project and will provide a great deal of work.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making this announcement. Will he confirm that this will keep the British aerospace industry at the leading edge of technology and therefore lead to further orders outside this narrow, although very large, order in relation to Airbus Industrie? Will he point out to the House and Britain as a whole that this demonstrates the Government's continuing support for manufacturing industry in this county and gives the lie to the Opposition statements that we are constantly running down manufacturing industry?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend's last point. The view that he describes is sheer nonsense. As the whole House knows, it is very encouraging to see that the growth in productivity in our manufacturing industry is now outstripping that in the rest of the world. It is also encouraging to see how well British Aerospace has done since it was privatised. Its profit figures and its record of orders from abroad are excellent. The House should be

proud of that, and all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have worked closely with British Aerospace know of the great success of that firm. It is winning many other orders overseas, and will take part in many other projects apart from the A330 and A340 projects.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Whatever happened to monetarism? For the past three and a half years, just as in the previous general election campaign, the Government have been telling us that throwing money at companies in both the private and the public sectors will not create jobs. Yet for the past six months leading up to the announcement of the election Ministers have been scrambling to get to the Dispatch Box to tell us about the grants, loans, subsidies and so forth that have been allocated to provide jobs. If they can provide jobs during the six months before an election, why cannot the Government be honest enough to tell us that they will do it throughout? Is it true that they are going to call this Airbus Election '87?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman does not really want a lecture on monetarism from me, and the House would be pretty bored if I attempted to give one. I believe that there is a general desire in all quarters of the House—and that includes the hon. Gentleman—that we should support this imaginative scheme. It will be very good for British aviation, and for Britain in general.
We have taken an extremely short time to make up our minds. We have done it more quickly than any of the other partner Governments, whom, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he no doubt considers slothful. We are determined to take part in the scheme, and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) cannot say that we are throwing away money as the taxpayer will receive an acceptable rate of return in real terms.

Mr. Michael Stern: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of the many people who work for British Aerospace at Filton, in my constituency, for today's announcement? Does he agree that in building on the success of the A320, as he has done this afternoon, he is showing that we as a Government support success rather than wishing, as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), appears to have done this afternoon, that he had come to the Dispatch Box and announced failure?

Mr. Channon: I agree entirely. We believe in backing success. This company has been very successful, and we are pleased to be able, after careful evaluation, to offer launch aid for the programme. It is extremely good news for Filton. I am sure that I am not alone in paying tribute to the excellent work done there, and I hope that there is a good future for that base of British Aerospace.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On behalf of hundreds of my constituents who work for British Aerospace at Woodford, I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for the statement. As he has said, British Aerospace has been outstandingly successful since its privatisation, not only in guaranteeing secure jobs but in its return on capital invested. Will he emphasise that, if we are to continue to play a meaningful part in providing civil aviation aircraft, it is vital that British Aerospace should be part of any wide-bodied project so that it can compete with McDonnell Douglas and Boeing?
Will my right hon. Friend also give an assurance that if, in the light of subsequent events, the French and the


Germans are seen to be giving additional launch aid, he will be prepared to consider a further approach from the management of British Aerospace for further aid? As my right hon. Friend highlighted in his statement, such aid will be repaid in accordance with the production of the A330 and the A340 as and when they are produced and sold.

Mr. Channon: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I know of the work that is done at Woodford and of the great importance of that work to British Aerospace.
I agree about the importance of the civil aviation industry in this country and in Europe. This afternoon's announcement will enable British Aerospace to join the Germans, the French and the Spanish in European collaboration to provide these aeroplanes. It will lead to a very exciting future for European civil aviation, going wider than United Kingdom civil aviation alone, although that must be our particular concern.
As for French and German launch aid, I do not think that I should anticipate what the German and French Governments may announce, because I have no idea what that announcement may be. Therefore, I had better stick to what I have already said—that this is good news.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision will be widely welcomed not only in constituencies such as that of my hon. but silent Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), which has a British Aerospace manufacturing facility, but also in Cannock and Burntwood, where we take an objective view of these matters? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this historic decision represents a decisive strike at Boeing's long-held monopoly in the long-haul market?

Mr. Channon: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that the silence of our hon. Friend does not mean that he has not been an active pursuer of this decision. I pay tribute to many of my hon. Friends, who have been very persuasive and who have explained to me very clearly and coherently why this is such an important project. I am also very glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) for this very exciting project, which will be very good for the future of the aviation industry.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement, which will be widely welcomed by those who work at British Aerospace, Broughton, where the wings for the A330 and A340 will be built, but is he able to provide more details about launch aid? Is he able to give the time span over which the money will be made available? Will it be front-end loaded? Does he agree that these two planes can be at least as commercially viable as the A320, which had more firm advance orders than any other civil aircraft in the history of mankind?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend recently came with a deputation to see me about the matter, and I pay tribute to him for his continuing interest in the project. There is every prospect of these aircraft being commercially viable. If I did not believe that, the Government would not have offered launch aid. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go into the details of the launch aid, which must remain commercially confidential. However, it would not be going too far to say that there is a considerable element of front-end loading that will be helpful to British Aerospace.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Geoffrey Dickens.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: They also serve, Mr. Speaker, who stand and wait.
General elections always bring out the worst in everybody. Despite some of the remarks that have been made about this statement, on behalf of the thousands of people who work for British Aerospace, whether on the shop floor or in the board room and of whatever political party, may I thank my right hon. Friend most sincerely for this vote of confidence and support in them, including hundreds of my constituents in Littleborough and Saddleworth? I hope that it will be duly recorded that it was due to my representations that they got the money.

Mr. Channon: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. During the lifetime of this Parliament I have made it an absolute rule to do everything that my hon. Friend asks me to do.

Mr. Speaker: May I say to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) that very frequently those who stand have to wait!

Appellate Committee (Proceedings)

Mr. Speaker: I undertook to reply today to the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about the making available to hon. Members of this House and to the public of the proceedings of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. In the time available, I have been able to make only a preliminary appreciation of the problems involved, but I have already concluded that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman touches upon the rights of the House of Lords to determine which parts of its proceedings to print or publish. I undertake to draw the attention of the authorities of the House of Lords to the hon. Gentleman's point and to supply them with a copy of the arguments that he advanced in its support.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your response. However, with the delicacy and tact perennially at your command in these matters, might you not also draw to the attention of the authorities in another place the fact that their expenses are met from the Consolidated Fund by a Vote of this House and that their Members subsist thanks to that Vote? Therefore, if they wish to stand on the fine point of expenditure, that may call into question an examination of their whole expenditure before this House votes it—perhaps something that neither they nor some of us would wish to bring about.

BILL PRESENTED

VEHICLE NUMBER PLATES

Mr. Fallon presented a Bill to regulate the manufacture and supply of vehicle number plates; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [Lords], if the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Ways and Means Resolution come to by the House in relation to the Bill have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Durant.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved,
That this House shall not adjourn to-morrow until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Durant.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 15, after "him" insert "on reasonable grounds"

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and 172.

Mr. Mellor: The Bill comes back to us in a somewhat different form from that in which it left us, as I am sure that those of us who sat through 36 sittings of the Committee will ruefully have to concede. I am glad that the other place was prepared to consider, in the time available, the very important provisions of part I, dealing with serious fraud, which have always commanded the support of all parties in the House. We properly had lively debates in both Chambers and in Committee about the precise nature of, and the demarcation lines appropriate to, the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Serious Fraud Office.
Clearly, a number of significant provisions in the Bill will not now become law during the lifetime of this Parliament; for example, the important changes to the laws of extradition and the arrangements for child witnesses to give evidence by video link as well as other significant changes to the laws of evidence, changes in penalties and important improvements in the law on confiscation. I hope and expect that those provisions will come back at an early stage of the new Parliament. I trust that they will then be considered with the seriousness of purpose and in the spirit of co-operation that characterised our debates in Committee.
The amendments mainly serve to make explicit assumptions that we believe to be implicit. Amendment No. 1 makes it clear, for example, that the director of the Serious Fraud Office may involve himself in a case only on reasonable grounds. Under amendments Nos. 2 and 3 the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements in the court when the defendant chooses to give evidence is placed beyond doubt. In the other place Lord Roskill called forcefully for the deletion of clause 2(8) on the ground that the financial and companies legislation on which the Serious Fraud Office powers are modelled expressly allow evidence obtained by the investigative powers to be adduced in court against those who provided the information.
We undertook to reflect further on that matter, and naturally gave great weight to the fact that the point was made to us by Lord Roskill, who, with others, had been charged with the duty of considering the matter and bringing forward the report upon which the present changes are based. Nevertheless, we concluded that the traditional safeguards in criminal proceedings should


remain. Those who served on the Committee will remember that I relied heavily on those safeguards when defending the extension into the criminal field from the more limited field of the regulation of companies the power to require compulsory answer.
Under the rule about previous inconsistent statements, it is generally understood that if the defendant chooses to give evidence in court and his statement is inconsistent with a statement made on a previous occasion he can be cross-examined on the inconsistency, because it is part of the prosecution's duty to test the credibility of the witness. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 put it beyond doubt that that rule will apply to statements made to the Serious Fraud Office, but do not otherwise touch on the points that were exhaustively considered in Committee.
This very important matter concerns the safeguard of the normal rules of criminal procedure, and balances it against the requirement, which most of us believe to be necessary, to allow investigators, using powers that have been used for many years in another context, to require answers when they are essential to the proper pursuit of investigation through a maze of interlinked companies or of financial transactions involving several accounts and perhaps around several countries.
I am sorry to have taken up a little of the House's time on this matter, but we think that the Bill is improved by the clarification that resulted from cross-party consideration in another place.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister referred to the 36 sittings of the Standing Committee. Opposition Members believe that the Bill has emerged from the other place in much better shape than it was in when it left this place. We are especially pleased that the clause that would have removed the defence's right to peremptory challenge has disappeared. There are, of course, items which, I suspect, will shortly be deleted, and which we shall be sad to lose. Examples include the ability to ensure that children can give evidence by video link rather than directly in awesome and sometimes frightening circumstances before a court, especially in cases involving violence or sexual abuse.
A further part which we support and would certainly wish to see enshrined in legislation under the Labour Government who will take office on 12 June is the increase in compensation for victims of crime and the establishment for the first time of a statutory body to ensure that they can receive compensation. We were disappointed at the Government's lack of generosity in excluding about 28 per cent. of potential victims from the provisions of their Bill and that is something that we shall put right in a new Bill under the Labour Government.
There is much that we are happy to see going down the drain and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. The provision on peremptory challenge is one, and is the most important of the provisions that we are happy to see disappear.
We are glad that the provision to establish the Serious Fraud Office, to which the Lords amendments refer, will remain, as we have consistently supported it. We had detailed arguments in Committee about the precise mechanisms under which the Serious Fraud Office should work, and we still have some reservations about the Government's intentions in relation to its funding. We

wish to ensure that it is properly funded, especially in the light of the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service, which hitherto has been inadequately funded.
We support the establishment of the Serious Fraud Office and we are particularly pleased that Lords amendment No. I inserts a test of reasonability on the director of the Serious Fraud Office in deciding what to investigate. It seems sensible that that provision should be included and we support the amendment. We have no major differences with the Government over the other amendments and we are happy to agree that they should be included in the Bill.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I am pleased that the Serious Fraud Office has been saved, and I entirely endorse much of what my hon Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said. Some parts of the Bill, such as those dealing with extradition laws and certain matters of sentencing, have much merit in them and I am sure that my hon. Friend and his colleagues will bring them before the House after 12 June. If the worst comes to the worst and we must again face the Minister, they will also no doubt come back.
In the intervening period perhaps the Government and my hon. Friends will consider the views expressed by professional and other bodies on other parts of the Bill. The debate goes on, and perhaps we can use the time well by learning from those views. In the light of recent events, the extradition laws, for example, should be considered even more carefully so that we get them absolutely right.
In general there is cross-party agreement because all of us wish to see the criminal law work effectively and the time of the courts saved by law becoming definitive and clear. I ask the Minister for an undertaking in respect of the Serious Fraud Office in the unfortunate event of his party being the Government after 12 June. I have already secured an undertaking on funding from my hon Friend and I declare a public interest as a practising barrister.
I am appalled at the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service has been starved of funds, facilities and support. Experienced lawyers of many years standing have become fed up with the bureaucratic nightmare of the Crown Prosecution Service and have left. Lawyers from the old county prosecuting solicitors' department who were transferred and promoted suddenly find within 12 months that people who were transferred as their deputies are promoted to the same level. No one objects to their having the same standing, but those who were promoted subsequently are often £2,000 or £3,000 a year better off than those who were transferred and promoted at the same time. Senior Crown prosecutors are leaving the service in droves and we cannot afford to lose them. I make no secret of the fact that a member of my family is employed in that service.
4.15 pm
That concept, which both the Minister and I were in favour of, is being ruined by the short-sightedness of the mandarins at the Treasury. That is why I secured an undertaking from our Front Bench team that in the event of their forming the next Government they would ensure that the Serious Fraud Office was properly manned. Unless it is staffed with people of the highest calibre, we shall never successfully get at the rats and destroyers in the City who have creamed millions, if not billions, off the wealth of the nation through swindles at Lloyd's, share-dealing swindles in the City and a multitude of other


swindles from long-term fraud to bogus supplying. A bogus supplier begins by supplying vast quantities of products but fails to pay those supplying him. They are complex, difficult matters which require the employment of accountants and people with great knowledge of the financial world. We cannot buy those people cheaply; we must pay them salaries commensurate with what they can earn in private practice or in the City. If we want the best, we must pay for the best. If we want the best investigative service, we must provide support staff and the most experienced lawyers. In other words, we must invest.
By investing in the service and making it work properly we shall in the long run save the nation vast sums. If we can catch fraud early and prosecute fraudsters successfully, others will be deterred. But it takes willpower and effort, experience and expertise to prosecute them successfully. These fraudsters are no amateurs; they are professionals who set out deliberately to cream millions of pounds from our economy. To catch a villain in a modern, complex society, we must know as much as the villain, and to know as much as the villain we must use experts who understand the subject properly, and that costs money.
Will the Minister undertake to fund the Serious Fraud Office properly? I hope he accepts that I ask for it for the best possible reasons. I do not want to see the sadnesses of the Crown Prosecution Service repeated. They are causing considerable grief to many people who have a great interest in that area and who are greatly supportive of it. It was a brilliant idea and unless the tide can be reversed it risks being destroyed by underfunding. I do not blame the Minister for that, as he well knows; I blame a lack of foresight on the part of those who do not understand the service and how it needs to be funded.
Perhaps in the next four weeks we can send the mandarins at the Treasury on a crash course to learn how prosecution services work. If the mandarins could learn that, they might let loose enough pounds and pennies to enable that service, and the service we are helping to bring into existence today, to be funded so that it can work effectively and to ensure that the guilty are prosecuted to conviction. I wait to hear whether I get the undertaking from the Minister that I have already had from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mellor: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to the points that have been made.
I am grateful to the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for accepting the amendments, and I hope that the whole House will share his view. The answer to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) is that the new office will have all the resources that it needs to do its job. There is no question about that. In defence of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who led the study within the Government from which the Serious Fraud Office emerged as our response to Lord Roskill's committee, I must say that he, as much as anyone, has a vested interest in the office running successfully and I know that he would fully endorse all that I have said.
I appreciate and have welcomed the interest of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in Bills such as this over the lifetime of the Parliament. I acknowledge that no one was keener than he was on the Crown Prosecution Service. However, he has been unfair in his description of

its present state. It is not strictly relevant to the Bill, but I shall take just a few sentences to comment on it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who has taken charge of the Crown Prosecution Service at ministerial level, has made very clear the commitment of the Government to ensuring that it receives proper resources. There has been a marked increase in the resources made available, which has allowed the service to offer considerably higher salaries than were originally on offer, to the point where organisations such as the Justices Clerks Society—which springs to mind because it made the point at a recent function that I attended—have said that a number of justices clerks are now leaving that service to join the Crown Prosecution Service because of the salaries on offer.
Inevitably, when a major change is made there are bound to be teething troubles and difficulties. I do not think that any of us would have expected otherwise. The fact that we have achieved a nationwide service makes the crucial distinction. The Royal Commission established by the last Government, the views of which in other respects were carried into force by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, asserted that it was absolutely necessary to separate the processes of investigation from the processes of prosecution.
I have little doubt that in the fullness of time the idea will not only be proved to be a good one, but in practice will succeed in effecting improvements in our system, particularly if it can address what I believe is the real difficulty—the amount of expense and time taken, and the unnecessary trouble and fuss caused, when prosecutions that do not stand a great chance of success nevertheless limp through the court system and are terminated at a far later stage than need be the case if they had been scrutinised earlier.
I am grateful for the welcome the House has given to the amendments, and I further commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 4

NOTICES OF TRANSFER—PROCEDURE

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 8, line 18, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3) and (7A)".

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

Mr. Mellor: I think that we can take the amendments shortly.[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is interrupting, because this is not Scottish business. I am not sure how advantageous to the general understanding of these complicated matters his interruptions are. The first two amendments allow magistrates to order witnesses to attend the Crown court trial where cases are transferred by the new procedure in the same way as they would if the case were committed. The third amendment ensures that the judge takes into account any oral submissions that may be made in an application for


discharge in determining whether there is a case to answer. They are technical amendments that improve the comprehensibility of the Bill.

Mr. Chris Smith: We have no great quarrel with the Government on the three amendments. Amendment No. 6 states in subsection (b):
a person whose written statement is tendered in evidence for the purpose of the notice of transfer shall he treated as a person who has been examined by the court.
At first sight that might appear to enshrine the dangerous principle that evidence can be taken as having been examined, even though it is simply tendered in writing. Because we are talking here about an early stage in the criminal proceedings that follow the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, although we have some qualms that ought to be put on the record about the principle that appears to be enshrined here, we are happy that the amendments should be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 7

POWER TO ORDER PREPARATORY HEARING

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 10, line 33, leave out from beginning to "it" in line 34.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 35.

Mr. Mellor: All the amendments relate to the preparatory hearing procedures. The bulk of them make the distinction called for by the Criminal Bar Association between a defendant and his lawyer for the purpose of the preparatory hearing. On that basis, I hope that the amendments will be welcomed by the House.
Amendment No. 20 responds to the concern expressed by the Opposition in another place and makes the obligations upon the defence at the preparatory hearing a little less specific than they were. I accept that the wording that has been substituted follows the relevant part of the Roskill report—paragraph 6.82. In no sense do we resent the change, because it seems eminently proper. It is faithful both to the Committee's views and to our central aim of allowing the preparatory hearing to be an effective procedure for defining the issues to be put to the jury.
Amendment No. 31 also responds to a point made by the Opposition in another place. It is taken from a useful precedent in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allows a jury to draw such inferences as appear proper from a refusal to provide an intimate sample in a police investigation. The parallel seems to us to be apt. When one is suggesting that inferences of that kind be drawn, there is some advantage in statutes, particularly those that follow closely upon each other in time, setting the parameters and using the same phraseology. The amendment achieves that. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Chris Smith: We give a warm welcome to the amendments, especially those that have been persuaded upon the Government by the Criminal Bar Association and those that were moved by the Opposition in the other place. We give a special welcome to amendment No. 20, because it gives a much more general interpretation of the

terms that must be set out by the defence at the preparatory hearing. It follows Roskill and is something that we pressed upon the Government in Committee. Therefore, I am pleased that, with the assistance of the other place, it is to be included in the Bill.
There is one question that I wish to ask of the Minister, the answer to which I suspect is probably easy and technical. In respect of amendment No. 35, the principal change that seems to be made, especially by subparagraph (b), is that material may not be disclosed
without the consent of the person who supplied or gave it.
In the original form of the Bill it was without the consent of the defence. I suspect that in some circumstances, only a limited number, they may he different people. I should be grateful for an indication from the Minister of the Government's thinking on that. I suspect that we have no quarrel on the matter, but it would be useful to have a small amount of clarification. With that sole and small question, I should like on behalf of the Opposition to give a warm welcome to the amendments.

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is too modest. The House may remember that amendment No. 20 follows concerns expressed in Committee during the passage of the Bill. The original draft of the Bill required the setting out in some detail of exactly the nature of the defence that was to be advanced. That was a breach of the long-standing practice by which people were under no duty to reveal their defence. The Bill in its present form merely asks the defence to state the issues upon which it will seek to challenge the prosecution case.
A considerable number of cases set out along one track and people think that the defence will do one thing rather than another. However, because of issues brought to light by way of cross-examination or otherwise, the whole nature of the defence can change as the case progresses. Under the provisions of amendment No. 20, that will remain so and people will not feel restrained or restricted as would be the case if the defence had to be advanced along the lines disclosed in the preparatory stages.
This is a sensible amendment which all practising criminal lawyers will welcome.

Mr. Mellor: Again with the leave of the House, I am glad to say that I welcome the reception for these amendments. I hope that the whole manner in which the Government have dealt with this Bill is characterised by the fact that we accept good advice when we receive it. I accepted many amendments in Standing Committee, some of which were significant. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office did the same in the other place. Far from that being a sign of weakness, it is a sign of strength when we can gather together and draw on experience throughout the Chamber on technical matters that generate no partisan differences. On the whole, these matters did not generate such differences.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) asked about amendment No. 35. This amendment follows directly from the invitation to us by the Criminal Bar Association to distinguish between the accused and his lawyer. All references to the defence have been altered in order to be more specific. If there is any additional significance to that change, I shall be happy to drop the hon. Gentleman a note. These are technical


drafting amendments and I am assured that they have the effect only of meeting the point that I think we all agree ought to be met. There is no additional significance to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 35 agreed to.

Clause 12

CHARGES OF AND PENALTY FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD

Lords amendment: No. 36, in page 15, line 43, at end insert—
(1A) In section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, the words from 'and' to the end are hereby repealed.

Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords' amendments Nos. 37 to 198.

Mr. Mellor: These are technical amendments, the combined result of which is to reduce the Bill to only those provisions associated with the operation of clauses 1 to 12. The final amendment, which reduces the long title of the Bill, is perhaps the neatest illustration of the radical but precise surgery performed by these amendments.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister is kidding us when he says that these are technical amendments. They are drastically radical amendments because, of course, they excise from the Bill everything that does not relate to the establishment of the Serious Fraud Office. We welcome the departure of much that these amendments excise, and we attach great importance to the disappearance of the removal of the right of peremptory challenge.
It may he helpful to the House if I give a strong commitment that the Labour Government who come into office in four weeks' time will seek to legislate to ensure that a proper statutory scheme of compensation for the victims of crime is established on more generous terms than those proposed in the original Criminal Justice Bill. Our legislation will include the provision that the Government gracefully accepted in Committee for the compensation of train drivers who suffer shock after an accident involving a person. We shall also seek to legislate to ensure that children can give evidence by means of a video link rather than having to give evidence in court.
We attach great importance to those matters and we hope that we can build on the constructive work that we carried out in Committee on those two specific areas by bringing forward further measures. We shall do that when we form the new Government in four weeks' time.

Mr. Roger Gale: I have no doubt that the electors of Putney will recognise the superb service that they have had from their Member of Parliament in the last four years, and that in shortly over a month's time my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will return to the high office that he now holds. At that time he will be in a position to reintroduce these clauses. I have personal experience of my hon. and learned Friend's tremendous understanding and the courtesy that he showed during the passage of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill, and I know that on occasions he is willing to review situations.
When my hon. and learned Friend returns to this matter, will he consider again clause 29, which deals with the prosecution appeal against sentence? Will he reconsider the point made by many hon. Members in Committee, on the Floor of the House and in another place that if the prosecution is to have a right of appeal against sentence—and we believe that it should—it should also have the right, if necessary, to seek to have the sentence increased?
Hon. Members have already spoken about clause 89. It deals with the abolition of the right to peremptory challenge. In Committee and in the House we face assaults on this clause. The alliance spokesman, who, sadly, is not in the House, attacked this clause. In spite of their newfound allegiance to the cause of law and order which we believe was heavily leaked from the alliance parties' manifesto, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will give no ground whatever. I hope that when the Bill comes back to the House—once more under his pilotage—we shall have the proposal to abolish the right to peremptory challenge back in the Bill where it belongs.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I wish to express my opposition to amendments Nos. 120 to 137 and amendment No. 180 which have the effect of deleting clauses 96 to 133 and schedule 9. I oppose the amendments because the clauses and the schedule cover amendments to the law of extradition that the Government were wise enough to propose in the original Bill. That was almost an heroic proposal on their part, because the extradition law in this country in the form in which we are debating it today derives from an 1870 Act. Therefore, it has taken a long time to bring forward amendments to bring the law up to date. Over the past 10 years Governments have promised reforms, but have never gone about it until, happily, this Government did. It is a great shame that the proposal before us is that we should abandon again this attempt at reforming the law of extradition to bring it up to date.
Broadly speaking, there are three sets of beneficial proposals in the clauses. There is a proposal for summary procedure in our extradition law, and that would have been very useful in cases where there was little opposition. There would have been conditions with regard to restrictions of extradition to Commonwealth states, which apply in the updated law—that is, the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. The relevant clauses would have applied to the Extradition Act 1870, or the new extradition law proposed by the Bill. it is important to bring such matters up to date.
There would have been simplified rules of evidence. We all know how much difficulty the courts have run into because of the tortuous rules of evidence which apply to the original extradition law. Those clauses represent a very useful reform. In Committee, there was scarcely any opposition to them, so I am somewhat puzzled as to why the Government have chosen to agree with the Lords proposal that we should drop them. The matters were debated and I cannot recall any outright opposition or a single Division being called on any of part IX of the Bill.
I ask my hon. and learned Friend—I am glad that he is now officially a learned Friend—whether it was necessary, after all these years when we tried to bring extradition law up to date, to abandon the reforms attempted by the Government.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Having once had the honour to hold the office which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State now holds, and having in that capacity taken a major Criminal Justice Bill through the House, in 1971, it is perhaps appropriate that my final words in the House should be to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the way he has carried out his duties in the Home Office and to say that I welcome the decision of the House of Lords to delete clause 29.
The House of Lords has twice removed what I believe to be an ill-thought-out and ill-considered proposal by the Government. My hon. and learned Friend may consider, when he comes back after the election in a Conservative Government with a substantial majority, that, as far as clause 29 is concerned, the best advice the third time may be not to try at all.

Mr. Bermingham: I echo and endorse what the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) said in perhaps his last contribution. He will be sadly missed. He brings much wisdom and learning to these debates and we all learn much from listening to him.
I support, as I did in Committee, the view of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). The sooner we bring the extradition laws up to date, the better. We had an opportunity, on a matter which was not disputed in Committee, to rectify a series of glaring omissions from the extradition law. When crime becomes international, as it has, we must make it easier for people to be extradited to the country where the offence took place or to seek and obtain the extradition of people who have committed crimes in this country. The matter is not politically sensitive; it comes in the international context of the pursuit of crime, and our laws must be updated and modernised.
I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for an undertaking that, in the event of our forming the Government after 12 June, the provisions will be brought back to the House at the earliest opportunity. I received such an assurance. I ask the Minister whether, in the event of his party forming the next Government, the same assurance can be given. It is of international importance that we pursue crime wherever it is committed and that our law should facilitate such pursuit.

Mr. William Cash: I wish to speak briefly on clauses 29, 32 and 125. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) took the view he did. I am glad that clause 29 will come out, but for a slightly different reason.
The powers in clause 29 are quite inadequate. The ordinary person in the street does not understand why those provisions were so weak. Recently in my constituency a Mrs. Whitehouse, landlady of the Lamb inn in Stafford, was brutally beaten and the person who did it received only a nine months' suspended sentence. If the power had been adequate, the opportunity could have been taken to review the position. I hope that when we return to office shortly a similar but tougher provision will be included in the new Bill.
I am somewhat concerned at the removal of clause 32. I hope that that will come hack rapidly because there is no question but that penalties for crimes must be increased.
Clause 125 relates to anonymity in rape cases. That is a matter of considerable controversy. The ordinary man and woman in the street are deeply concerned about this issue and it must be dealt with.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has conducted himself in his office. Those of us who are observers of these things have noted, both on the "Today" programme and on many other occasions, the way in which he has done a great service to his office.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I must tread carefully on this matter, not being an expert in legal matters. but I have checked my facts with the Minister. First, I apologise to him on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) for his absence. I am attending on his behalf because he has asked me to do so.
I support what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said about extradition. It incenses me and many of my constituents who lost much money in a Lloyd's fraud that a gentleman is sitting in America with vast sums of money and we are unable to bring him back for trial. I have asked questions of the Attorney-General, but so far nothing has happened. Our Belgian friends must also feel pretty sick after the recent Liverpool case.
I support what has been said by all hon. Members and hope that the new Bill will include those clauses and they will go through swiftly.

Mr. Mellor: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) here because he chaired the Committee with considerable distinction, just as he chaired the 59 sittings of the Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. That had got to the Lords amendment stage at the end of the last Parliament, but had to be reintroduced. Any illusion one may have had that the Bill had been well turned over and therefore would go through speedily was set to one side, as there were 59 sittings, which I believe to be a parliamentary record. It has been asserted by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that it was a parliamentary record and, of course, I believe implicitly every word he says.
When my hon. Friend was chairing the Committee, he told us that he suspected we would not have the last word on this Bill. I congratulate him on the ability of whatever gipsy he consults on Scarborough beach, because the prediction was right. I shall not mind in the least having another go at this measure. I am confident that the Government will reintroduce the Bill at an early stage, because it contains matters which are far too crucial to let drop.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said, supported by others, about the significance of the extradition proposals. The extradition arrangements must be modernised. We cannot go on appearing to be an inhospitable place from which other civilised countries try to get their criminals back. That merely invites a similar lack of co-operation towards our own efforts. There is a blot on our procedures because, for example, we have only one tenth of West Germany's extradition traffic, so unappealing are our arrangements for our friends and associates within the European Community and elsewhere.
I cannot criticise the other place for deciding that it could not send these matters back to us without full


consideration because this was to have been the first substantive change in extradition arrangements for 117 years. We cannot begrudge our revising Chamber the right to examine such matters.
Other parts of the Bill could have been salvaged if other parties had so wished. In particular, I regret that the child video evidence provisions were not saved. I also regret that the increased penalties for insider dealings are not attached to the Bill. This is not a time for partisan points. At least the serious fraud provisions can pass into law. We intend to pursue the other matters at the earliest opportunity.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle). My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North asked whether we would think again about clause 29. My candid answer is that we will have to think about it again in the light of what has happened. Precisely what form those other thoughts will take is not a matter for the present. I am clear—I say this with some pain because of the respect that I have for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South—in believing that the option of doing nothing is not open, but we shall think carefully about it.
Our commitment to the abolition of peremptory challenge is as strong as ever. That will unite all my hon. Friends in the Chamber.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North for what he said about my personal contribution. He has been with me on a number of committees which have led to significant changes in the law, particularly to changes in the law on animal experimentation which have taken that issue out of its former context.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for what he said.
No one has been more consistently kind and helpful to me than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South during my eight years in the House. I have great respect for him for what he did in government and for what he has done since for home affairs and as chairman of our Back-Bench home affairs committee. He will be much missed by all his friends here and elsewhere.
The achievement by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is formidable. Most of us are elected to the House on the back of a successful ongoing tide. He won his seat in spectacular fashion and held on to it. He has suffered some ill health in recent years, and I regret that that has caused him to announce his retirement. I wish him well. He has many friends in this place.
I regret that this radical surgery on the Bill is necessary. It is unfinished business and we shall not be long delayed in coming back to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 198 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill

Lords amendments consideredc

Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time.
I am grateful to the Opposition for supporting the Bill's passage. It is a worthy measure which will help many ex-service men and their dependants. The trust was established to benefit Irish veterans of the first world war. In view of their declining numbers, it is right that surplus funds should be released to benefit Irish veterans of more recent conflicts. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. George Foulkes: I am sure that widows, widowers and former members of Her Majesty's armed forces and their children who are affected by the Bill will be grateful to hon. Members on all sides of the House for agreeing that the Bill should pass before the election, after which a Labour Government will be returned.
It would help if the Minister could say how much money is involved so that the people concerned know exactly what residual amount will be distributed by the distributory agency when it is appointed by the new Labour Secretary of State.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The electors of Enfield will soon have the opportunity by their votes of expressing their appreciation of the manner in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has served them while sustaining a heavy burden in his Department and in foreign parts.
The debt of the people of these islands to Irish fighting men is immeasurable. There is no mention of airmen in the Bill's title because the land trust was set up to help those who fought in the great war of 1914 to 1918, and their dependants. When the Bill was given a Second Reading in another place, Lord Denning recalled seeing Lord Ypres, then Sir John French, at the front. That field marshal, during recruiting tours of Ireland, promised that volunteers would be provided with housing after the war. Hence the trust. Now that the main function of the fund has come to an end, it is to be diverted to other beneficial purposes, as my hon. Friend described.
Together with the lifeboat service of all Ireland and other cherished institutions, the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust is one of those bodies which, despite partition, plays its part throughout Ireland and embraces representatives of the Governments of the kingdom and of the Republic in what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister describes as the "unique relationship".
I should like to ask the Minister about the allocation of the assets. The Bill provides for two fifths of the 68 per cent. share held by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to be made available. What is the basis of that computation? Why should five fifths not be distributed after allowing for administrative expenses?
I am glad that the distributing agency is to be the Royal British Legion, of which a number of us in the House are

members. It is appropriate that Earl Haig should have spoken in the Second Reading debate in the House of Lords.
Like the trust, the Legion overleaps the Irish border. In Northern Ireland, the Legion is pre-eminent in poppy day collections and it is also active in the South. When the Irish Free State was established as a dominion in 1922, it was proposed to form an Irish Legion, but Irish old comrades insisted that the name British Legion be retained. There are still a number of British Legion branches throughout the Irish Republic. That is strange because the Irish Free State was set up as a dominion modelled on Canada. There is a Royal Canadian Legion but in the Irish Republic the name British Legion remains.
In the other place Lord Killanin said that the new arrangements had the blessing of the new Taoiseach. Mr. Haughey, like his predecessor Dr. FitzGerald, assured the noble Lord that the money would not be snapped up a nd put into the Treasury, but that it would be spent wisely. The Secretary of State will ensure that it is spent wisely for the benefit of the veterans and their dependants.
In the debate to which I have referred the noble Lord Prys-Davies put certain questions to my right hon. Friend the Baroness Young. My right hon. and noble Friend replied to most of those questions, but there are two questions, found in column 1425 of the Lords Hansardof 28 April 1987, to which my right hon. and noble Friend gave no answer. Doubtless no answer was given because those questions are not for the Foreign and Commonweath Office, but for the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Health and Social Security. Doubtless the Minister will be writing to the Lord Prys-Davies and, if so, the hon. Member for Epping Forest will also be interested in those replies.
I am grateful for this opportunity to say a word of gratitude to those Irish men and women to whom we owe so much.

Mr. Eggar: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) for his remarks about me. It is absolutely typical of my hon. Friend that it was he who, during the business statement, asked that efforts should be made by parties on all sides of the House to get this Bill through in the closing days of this Parliament. It is also typical of my hon. Friend that he should, quite rightly, pay tribute to the tremendous contribution that was made by Irishmen, on both sides of the border, during the first world war and of course subsequently.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked about the amount of the trust. Leaving aside sufficient money for the prudent management of the remaining houses, the trust estimates an initial surplus of £4·5 million. That and any subsequent smaller surpluses will be shared between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in proportion to the original contribution made by the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State. Two fifths of the British share will be paid to a distributory agency for the benefit of former members of the British armed forces and their dependants resident in Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest asked about the percentage of the share that is going back to the British Government and the trustees. That percentage was agreed upon after negotiations between the Government, the trustees and the Royal British Legion. I assure my hon.


Friend that the arrangements, finally arrived at, have received strong support from the trustees and the Royal British Legion.
We believe that this Bill strikes a fair balance between the interests of the contributing Governments and, on our side, between the Government and former members of the British armed forces and their dependants. I strongly commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Further proceeding postponed, pursuant to the order of the House this day.

WAYS AND MEANS

Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [Lords]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr.Lennox-Boyd.]

Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, REPEALS AND EXTENT

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 36, leave out subsection (5).
The amendment is designed purely to delete the privilege amendment made in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

Territorial Sea Bill [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 3, line 45, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Eggar.]

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a short, technical Bill that has been welcomed by both sides of the House and by the other place. That general support is valuable, because it is an important Bill despite its technical aspects. It will mean that legislation that applies in the 3-mile limit will, in general, apply in the wider limit. This will cover, in particular, the prosecution in United Kingdom ports of owners and masters of vessels who discharge oil or infringe traffic separation schemes, shipping accidents giving rise to pollution, and arrests for smuggling.
I should like to mention two specific points. The first was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who expressed some concern that the extension of the territorial sea would place an additional burden on the policing authorities of Kent and Essex. I assure my hon. Friend that we consulted all the Government Departments concerned with administration and enforcement in the terroritorial sea. We reached the conclusion that the expense in these matters would not significantly increase. Departments are satisfied that such activities as they consider necessary in the remoter belt of waters from 3 to 12 miles will not significantly alter the general pattern of expenditure or calls on authorities.
I also want to mention a point about the extension of the Bill's provisions to the Isle of Man, which the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell)—he has given me notice that he is unable to be present tonight—raised with me. I am sure the House will agree that it is proper to follow the usual route of close consultation with the Isle of Man authorities on the issue of the territorial sea around the island and, in particular, on that of fishing there, which I understand to be the right hon. Gentleman's main concern. I assure the House that we remain determined that the arrangements for the conservation and management of fisheries in those waters should not, in any way, be to the detriment of fishermen in the United Kingdom, and I include Northern Ireland in that.
I should not go too far ahead of the consultations with the Government of the Isle of Man, but the Government recognise that the House will wish to be informed about the extension of the territorial sea adjacent to the islands, and I undertake that the House will be so informed.
Having made those two small points, I ask the House to give the Bill its Third Reading.

Mr. George Foulkes: It is entirely appropriate that we have had a smooth passage from a Bill dealing with Irish sailors to the Territorial Sea Bill. It has been a pleasure for the Opposition to help with both measures.
We have given the Bill a general welcome, here and in the other place, but we have expressed some reservations about it. I am grateful to the Minister for his answers in Committee and subsequently. However, we are still concerned that some provisions will be introduced by Orders in Council, although, as the Minister made clear on Second Reading, they will be technical. We do not like the procedure of delegating to the Privy Council the power to enact legislation that should properly be dealt with by the House. We would prefer the Bill to legislate now for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. We recognise the need for close consultation, and we recognise the power that the House has to legislate on these matters for the small islands off the shore of the United Kingdom, including those with special constitutional relationships to it.
We regret that the Government have not seen fit to accept all the provisions of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, and have accepted only this one. We wish to register our regret that the extension to cover marine nature reserves has not been included in the Bill.
We still believe that there is a degree of complacency about the threat to fishing vessels from submarines, which we reckon will be increased by the extra area that is covered by the provisions of the Bill. We hope that other Ministers—I know that this is not the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—will take account of that.
Finally, in spite of the clear and categorical assurances that the Minister so kindly gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) on Second Reading, there is still a wide misunderstanding that the Bill will affect the arrangements for the sale of duty-free liquor and other goods on cross-Channel ferries. It would be appropriate for the Minister to try to dispel that concern once and for all. It seems much more prevalent on the Conservative Benches, for reasons that I can quite understand. It would be helpful if the Minister would make it clear that when the Bill becomes an Act tomorrow it will have no effect whatever on the purchase and subsequent enjoyment of duty-free goods on ships.
With those reservations, and the search for that assurance, we generally welcome the Bill and look forward to the return of a Labour Government to implement its provisions.

Dame Peggy Fenner: In Committee my hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to give me the assurance to which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred. Because my hon. Friend's Department is not responsible for Customs and Excise matters, he gave me a copy of a press release from Customs and Excise that confirms what he said in Committee.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley is right when he says that there is still some concern about the matter. We have a large number of ferry ships in my home county and constituency. The

constituency has a close connection with ports and the sea, and merchant men there have expressed this concern to me. At what point does a ferry master close the duty-free office if the 3-mile limit no longer obtains? It always closes at that point because of the territorial sea limit. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that if a vessel was 12 miles out from this country and 12 miles out from France, those on board would sell little duty-free merchandise.
I thank my hon. Friend for the great trouble that he took to reassure me in Committee, and if he can give any further reassurance, I know that the ferry men and merchant men in my constituency will be grateful.

Mr. Michael Brown: I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate an the Bill, which, of course, is greatly welcomed in my constituency. It has a long seaboard and is bounded by the North sea and the Humber estuary, where there are often a large number of oil tankers and ships from all over the world. My hon. Friend will know of the discharge of oil in our waters by the foreign tanker Sivand in 1983. That was handled by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), when he was the responsible Minister in another Department. The great joy, from the point of view of my constituency, is that, now that legislation is to be put on the statute book tomorrow, we shall have the opportunity to seek some redress.
The Humber estuary, as I have said, is thick with sea traffic carrying hazardous material, and many oil tankers. There have been discharges in the past, and we are most grateful to the Government for introducing the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend for what he has done to see it safely through the House.

Mr. Eggar: I thank the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and the Opposition for supporting the Bill. Many of the detailed reservations that the hon. Gentleman has expressed were those that he expressed in Committee. I understand them, but, on balance, the Bill deals with the issues in the appropriate way.
I wish to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that I appreciate the point about the benefits that the Bill will bring to his constituents and to many other constituents who are affected by pollution from the sea. There are clearly significant benefits in being able to extend the provisions of our law, which previously applied only to the 3-mile limit, to 12 miles.
Finally, I refer to the point made by the hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley about duty-free liquor and its supply on cross-Channel ferries. I can state categorically that the Bill makes no difference to the present procedure on ferries. Customs and Excise has stated publicly that, for sound practical reasons, it has long accepted that bars and shops on board ships sailing to foreign ports may be opened once connection with the shore has been severed. The extension of the territorial limit from 3 to 12 miles will therefore have no effect.
I hope that all those doubters who, we are told, surround the bars of our ports—there are even some such doubters inland in my constituency—will be


reassured by that. It is with some pleasure that I realise that my final contribution to this Parliament has been to give such a vital assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With the agreement of the House, I shall put together motions 6 to 13 on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Definition of Capital Expenses (Scotland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

That the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987, dated 2nd April 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be approved.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

That the Black Country Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987, dated 2nd April 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th April, be approved.

RACE RELATIONS

That the draft Race Relations (Offshore Employment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 1st May, he approved.

SEX DISCRIMINATION

That the draft Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay (Offshore Employment) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

That the Teeside Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987, dated 13th April 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved.

AGRICULTURE

That the Home Grown Cereals Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 671), dated 6th April 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th April, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

That the New Valuation Lists Order 1987, dated 31st March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Question agreed to.

Registered Establishments (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

DEFINITION OF "ESTABLISHMENTS"

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 18, leave out "63A" and insert "63B".

Mr. David Knox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient also to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): The Government are happy to accept the amendment and pleased to see progress being made with the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 4

JOINTLY REGISTRABLE ESTABLISHMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 7, line 2, leave out "1(2)" and insert "1A(a)".

Mr. Knox: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8.

Mrs. Currie: The Government are happy to accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.

Health Services (Islington)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Chris Smith: It is something of a privilege to be able to speak on the Adjournment of the House at such an early hour in the afternoon. I suspect that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), the Under-Secretary of State, will riot thank me for this, because I believe that there is a queue of further Adjournment debates to which I suspect she will respond, happily and willing as ever.
In raising the issue of health care for the elderly in Islington, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the background to what has happened to the health services in the borough of Islington, part of which I have the honour to represent in this place, since the Government came into office. For example, we have lost the entire casualty department at the Royal Northern hospital. It is much missed and much lamented by my constituents. Within the Islington district health authority the waiting list in September 1982 stood at 1,098. In March 1986 it stood at 2,410. That was an increase of 119 per cent., the greatest increase over that period of any health authority in the London area.
I fear that the position since 1986 has become worse. It is worse particularly for prospective patients who are awaiting urgent operations. The number of people within the Islington district waiting more than a month for urgent treatment amounts to 83 per cent. of the total. That puts the Islington district health authority in 182nd place out of the 191 health authorities. The figures for the Bloomsbury health authority, which adjoins the Islington health authority, and which has some responsibility for the care of elderly patients in the Islington area, are far and away the worst of any health authority. The hospital waiting list is the worst in England, and Bloomsbury takes 191st place, there being 191 local authorities.
That is the background on waiting lists, and the rhetoric from the Prime Minister and from the Government generally about the Health Service being safe in their hands and about spending more in real terms on it now than in 1979 falls on unreceptive ears among my constituents. Their experience is of a Health Service that is severely in decline. They are waiting longer and they are suffering as a result. The Islington draft operational plan reveals that there is to be a reduction by 1993 in the number of acute beds that are available. From 1983 to 1985 the number decreased from 982 to 812, and it is set to be reduced further to 659 by 1993. That is the draft operational plan that has been established by the Islington health authority. Sadly, it is not alone in facing the prospect of further decline among inner London districts.
Earlier this year the King's Fund, an independent agency, produced a report on the planned health services in inner London. It was called "Back to back planning". It revealed, among other rather frightening facts, that there was no coherent and comprehensive picture on inner London's health needs available from reading the reports, plans and future strategies of the four regional health authorities that between them cover inner London.
Another issue that it raised was extremely worrying, and the 12 chairmen of the district health authorities that cover inner London set out the position starkly in the foreword to the report. They wrote:
Regional plans for inner London Districts require a reduction of £109 million"—
a reduction of 12·9 per cent.—
in the period from 1983–84 to 1993–94; this is equivalent to the combined annual cost of St. Thomas', St. Bartholomews and the Royal Free Hospitals.
Those are three major teaching hospitals. The equivalent cost of the three hospitals put together is expected to be taken out of the health budget for inner London over the 10 years from 1983–1993. That is the background against which I raise this debate.
Lengthening waiting lists, reductions in the number of acute beds and future cuts in funding for inner London health authorities affect severely the elderly in my constituency. My constituency has a higher than average number of elderly people, especially elderly people living alone. Many of them need proper and decent health care, but, unfortunately, they are not getting it.
Primary health facilities do not constitute the only problem. There are other areas of the Health Service that cause me to be concerned. The London ambulance service is one of them, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will be raising the issue in greater detail later this afternoon. Last summer the London ambulance service cut drastically the number of non-urgent journeys that it was prepared to undertake. It claims now that the number of non-urgent journeys is increasing, and there is some slight evidence of improvement, but last summer there were drastic cuts in non-urgent journeys. The sector of the population most affected by those cuts are the elderly, with their transport to day centres and the difficulties that they have in getting out of their homes. The elderly in my constituency are faced with the problem of a health and ambulance service that is fundamentally in decline.
To add to that difficulty, for many years we have not known precisely where the responsibility for the planning of health services for the population of south Islington has lain with the Bloomsbury district health authority, which has supposedly been responsible for planning hospital services for the elderly. Sadly, althouth it has had that responsibility, and although supposedly within the funding that has been made available to it by central Government some account has been taken of that responsibility, it has not been exercising it.
It was nonsense in the first place for a portion of the health responsibility of one area to rest in the hands of a health authority for a different area. It may be adjacent, but none the less it was not a health authority that covered that part of the population. The people of Finsbury and the southern part of Islington were falling between two stools. Primarily they looked to Islington district health authority for support and assistance, but that health authority was not funded to provide it; Bloomsbury health authority was funded to provide it, but unfortunately it did not do so. To make matters worse, much of the population, especially in Finsbury, expected St. Bartholomew's hospital to provide hospital care for them, but St. Bartholomew's is run and administered by the City and Hackney health authority, which was yet a third

health authority involved in the confused picture in the provision of hospital services for the elderly in south Islington.
For several years I have been endeavouring to establish exactly where the responsibility lies, who is prepared to take it up, and where the funding should be directed. It seems that some small amount of progress is being made. I wrote to the Minister some weeks ago specifically about where the precise responsibility for hospital services for the elderly in south Islington lies, should lie and where, in the Government's view, it should lie in the future. Should it lie with Islington district health authority, which is presumably the logical place to put it? Should it lie with the City and Hackney health authority because St. Bartholomew's hospital is run by it and is the hospital that is immediately adjacent to the boundary? Should it lie with Bloomsbury health authority, which has had the responsibility for funding up until now?
I received a very helpful letter, not from the Minister, but from the chairman of the North East Thames regional health authority, who the Minister had asked to reply on her behalf. I was pleased to read the first sentence of the second paragraph of that letter. He said:
I acknowledge that Services for the Elderly in South Islington are inadequate.
It is extremely good to have received that clear statement of the problem in writing from the chairman of the regional health authority. He went on:
I am delighted that some progress has now been made and that there is agreement between Bloomsbury, Islington and City and Hackney Health Authorities about how to deliver improved services. The Regional Health Authority has also agreed to allocate some resources to ensure the planned improvements.
I shall return to that point, because the information that I hope the Minister will give us this afternoon is exactly what planned improvements there are and what funds are coming from which authority.
The chairman continued:
The Health Authorities acknowledge that GPs refer elderly, acutely ill patients living in South Islington to St. Bartholomew's Hospital and City and Hackney District, with capital support from the Regional Health Authority, has agreed to provide an acute assessment ward designated for this purpose which should be available in 1989.
So far, so good. What happens—this is my first specific question to the Minister—between now and 1989? A specifically designated ward in St. Bartholomew's hospital in 1989 is welcome, but between now and then where should GPs refer elderly patients who come from south Islington who are acutely ill and require hospital treatment?
The chairman continued:
There is agreement also that longer stay health service provision should be provided by Islington Health Authority to complement the range of services provided by the London Borough of Islington.
I am glad to receive that assurance from the chairman of the regional health authority, but I suspect that he has forgotten that the London borough of Islington is a rate-capped authority and therefore will find it impossible to devote additional resources to assist in this process. He also seems to have forgotten that with the impending closure of Friern Barnet hospital many patients from that hospital will be returning into the Islington community over the next five or six years and for whom joint provision by the health authority and borough will have to be made. That will be a major drain on resources and funds, and to envisage, at the same time as that is occurring, provision


being made for the longer stay health needs of the elderly is stretching credulity. It will require a major injection of funding into the health authorities and the borough to ensure that those needs are properly met.
My second specific question to the Minister is in relation to the longer stay Health Service provision. What funds will be made available to enable Islington health authority and Islington borough council to provide between them the sort of service that the chairman of the regional health authority envisaged? What funding will be available to enable that to happen in full and proper form?
My third specific question to the Minister relates to the agreement between Bloomsbury, Islington and City and Hackney, which is referred to in the earlier paragraph of the chairman's letter. Obviously, that agreement is welcome. It is long overdue and it is about time that the three district health authorities and the region agreed a strategy on what to do about patients who need proper hospital provision, proper planning of their health needs and a way of meeting them.
What are the precise terms of that agreement? How much funding will come from each of the three district health authorities, and how much funding will come from the regional health authority to provide these improved services? What improvement will occur? At present, many elderly patients from south Islington are dealt with at St. Bartholomew's hospital, but from where will the improvement come? Some improvement may be coming with the new ward in 1989, but what will happen between now and then?
A rather ominous note was set in the middle of an appendix to one of the recent reports to the district health authority meeting in Islington, which referred to possible cuts in provision for the elderly in southern Islington. A number of figures were set out beside the figure for possible cuts. The figures related to the three district health authorities. I should dearly like to know from the Minister exactly how much funding will come from the three district health authorities, and how much will come from the region, to cope with the health and hospital needs of elderly people in the southern part of my constituency. They need and deserve better treatment than they are getting at the moment.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's specific replies to my questions and also her commitment to a rather better future for my constituents' health needs and health facilities than they have had for any of the past eight years. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that she will give some comfort.
These are the dying days of the Government. The Government will shortly be replaced by a Labour Government who are determined to support the Health Service, particularly in inner areas such as Islington, to a much greater extent and with much greater care for the needs of people'than the present Government have shown. I hope that the Government, even in their dying days, will relent and that we will have a deathbed conversion to the principle of proper funding for our health services and a proper way to meet the needs of elderly people—my constituents—who deserve a much better deal than they are getting at the moment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr.

Smith) on his efforts to publicise the needs and concerns of his constituents. He wrote to me on 25 February 1987. I am deeply hurt that he failed to acknowledge that I wrote back. Indeed, I have a letter dated 18 March, which I shall read. As a result of that correspondence, I have a great deal of progress to report on some of the specific issues that he has raised. Indeed, since this debate is a little earlier in the evening than usual, I shall have the opportunity to report some progress in a wider area of interest; that is, the care of and the level of services for the elderly that the Government have been able to provide, and some aspects of care, particularly in the Islington health authority.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right: the number of acute beds has been reduced. Even now, however, the total number of acute beds in London for its population runs at twice the national average and about two and a half times the level of acute beds for the population of outer London. That is for the obvious reason that the population of London has shifted. Indeed, about 2·5 million people have left central London in the years since the war. However, on the whole, the health services have continued to maintain the pattern that was established 100 years ago and subsequently. Therefore, in any calculation of acute services for the population, London has been substantially over-provided. I am not the first Minister who has said it, and it has not been only Conservative Ministers who have said it. It has been said for some time.
The plan to lose some 1,500 acute beds over the 10-year period from 1984 to 1994, which was actively debated a short time ago in the regional health authorities and the district health authorities, has been put into operation rather faster than anybody expected. Three years into a 10-year programme, 1,100 beds out of the 1,500 beds have already gone. It is realistic to state that that rapid changeover has brought some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman has described.
However, there are two aspects. The first is that, in many cases, acute beds have been replaced by geriatric services, and some of the developments that I shall describe are of exactly that kind. Our elderly people fill half the acute beds in the country, but it does not automatically follow that they are getting the best service that they need by remaining in the acute side of the service. Where, as in much of London, the geriatric service has been inadequate and the acute service was over-provided, the switch from acute to geriatric has been widely recognised as necessary and sensible. The problem has been the speed with which some of it has happened rather than the pattern of change.

Mr. Chris Smith: indicated assent.

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman agrees. Since he entered the House, he has taken a keen and intelligent interest in the subject. He would recognise that to have gone in the opposite direction—to have diminished geriatric services and to have increased acute services—would not have been sensible.
Secondly, in many parts of London much better general practitioner services are reducing some of the pressure on hospitals. We are particularly pleased to see that, in one or two places, better GP work is resulting in far fewer requirements for people, particularly elderly people, to be admitted to hospital. In other words, they are getting better care and service from their GPs. I am sure that they


welcome that—I certainly do. We hope to see rather more of the same, not just in London and not just for elderly people, but all over the country.
We recognise the special difficulties in London—I say that as a Member from the Trent health authority area. Two important studies are under way. They should bear fruit in some of the directions that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would want. We recognise that simply comparing London's needs with its population does not work for London because its population swells with commuters. One is attempting, in many parts of the London region or regions, to provide two lots of health services because people want them at home in Kent, Sussex, Bedfordshire, or wherever they live, and also in London, where they work. If someone collapses with a heart attack at Waterloo station, he will not promptly be taken back to his district hospital 30 miles away, but will be treated in one of the main London hospitals, and he will get good service. That fact is recognised. Detailed studies are under way as to how that might properly be calculated. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that they are far-reaching discussions. That matter is now being looked at with some care.
The other major study that is under way is about patterns of nurse recruitment in London and the difficulties in recruiting and retaining nurses in London, which might be rather different from some of the problems in the rest of the country. I think we now recognise how serious a problem accommodation is in some parts of London. The results from some studies will come to us shortly. We hope that we shall be able to make some announcements on that matter.
The hon. Gentleman might care to look at the Official Reportof last Friday's Adjournment debate about Newham health authority. He may find that it is not only a problem about nursing but that there are one or two problems in a wide range of services. We are aware of the problems and we are determined to ensure that we have adequate information and some decent long-term studies on which sensible decisions can be made.
I turn now to services for elderly people in the country as a whole. There are now about 10 million pensioners. We now have a higher proportion of pensioners than any other major country except Sweden. Our pensioners are living longer—we are all living longer. The life expectancy of a baby girl born today is 81 years. That is a tribute to the Health Service and the quality of services provided by it. It is a tribute to better housing and better prosperity all round, much of which, thank goodness, pensioners are also able to enjoy.
In regard to the Health Service and local authority services for the elderly, I am glad to report some substantial improvements since 1978–79, when last there was a Government of the colour that I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might prefer to see after the election. Under our Government very substantial improvements have been recorded and it is worth putting them on record. My figures are for England. The number of elderly people treated in geriatric units has increased substantially, as in-patients by some 60 per cent. and as out-patients by some 40 per cent., between 1978 and 1985. Nearly 400,000 elderly people are treated every year as in-patients in geriatric departments. They are therefore getting the service that they particularly need. Day hospital

attendance has risen by nearly 20 per cent. in the same period. Indeed, some 1·6 million old people regularly attend day hospitals.
We have seen increases in hospital staffing. The number of consultant geriatricians rose by nearly 50 per cent. between 1978 and 1986, and we now have nearly 500 whole-time equivalent consultant geriatricians in a sphere that used to be the Cinderella service in which very few people wished to work. Similarly, the number of nurses caring for geriatric patients between 1978 and 1985 increased by 22 per cent. We now have nearly 45,000 such whole-time equivalents working for the elderly.
Of course, the vast majority of the elderly are cared for in the community. The community health services have also seen improvements. The number of district nurses has jumped by 18 per cent. The number of elderly people treated in their own homes by district nurses is 1·6 million every year. That is a remarkable achievement. That figure has increased by 28 per cent. under this Government. About 74 per cent. of district nurses' time and nearly 90 per cent. of auxiliaries' time in the community is spent caring for elderly patients.
We do not neglect either the problems of mobility. The number of chiropodists treating the elderly has risen. The total number has gone up by nearly 24 per cent. and the number of elderly people treated by National Health Service salaried and sessional chiropodists is up by 25 per cent. to 1·5 million a year. That is a remarkable tribute to all the staff concerned.
Turning to local authority provision, we find a slightly more mixed pattern and perhaps not quite as much growth, but local authority provision is not entirely under our control in the way that the Health Service is. Local authority provision for the elderly has to compete with other interests in many local authorities. Islington is one with such important bodies as a peace committee, a women's committee and other such committees. In some parts of the country local authority provision has not risen quite as fast as the health care provision——

Mr. Chris Smith: I must intervene momentarily to correct the hon. Lady. For a start, there is no peace committee or any such entity in Islington borough council. There is a women's committee which does extremely good work on health and safety issues which worry many women in the constituency.

Mrs. Currie: I suspect that the elderly women in the constituency might prefer more home helps, but that is an opinion from one who was a Birmingham city councillor for 11 years.
I noticed last week, following the hammering that the Labour party got in the city of Birmingham when its majority was slashed by some 10 votes on the city council, that the first thing the Labour leader of the council, Mr. Dick Knowles, did was to abolish the women's committee and the race committee and take issue strongly with those who felt that it was wise to have them. He said that he had intended to abolish them anyway; it was just pure coincidence that he did so the day after a disastrous election.
On local authority provision for the country as a whole, I am delighted to report that between 1979 and 1985 the number of places in day centres went up by 15 per cent. and nearly 22,000 elderly people can go to day centres each


day. Since people do not go every day, obviously that provision is available to more than 22,000 people over a week.
The number of meals served through the meals on wheels service has risen to 43 million a year; 70 per cent. of the meals are served to people in their own homes. The number of home helps has gone up by 14 per cent. There are now some 53,000 full-time equivalents. As most home helps are part-timers, that is a substantial army of people helping the elderly to stay in their own homes. We have also seen overall an improvement in residential care, not through the local authority service but mainly through the increased provision of excellent residential care in the private sector.
Islington district health authority, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is chaired by a former Member of the House, Mr. Eric Moonman, and a very good job he is doing. If we look through some of the funding and other developments in that health authority, evidence may be called in aid against the broad case that the hon. Gentleman tried to put. The gross revenue expenditure of the health authority in 1985–86, for example, was a shade under £45 million. This year the initial cash allocation for that health authority has risen to nearly £51 million. That is a substantial increase in a period of barely two years. I know that the authority will use it wisely under Mr. Moonman's guidance.
Between 1985–86 and this year the authority has had some million in capital. The result is that it is looking after more patients. Between 1982 and 1985, the most recent year for which I have figures, the number of in-patient cases treated in Islington went up from 26,900 to 28,200 and the number of cases treated on a day basis went up from 2,500 to 3,500. I have examined the performance indicators for similar authorities and it may be possible to look after more patients on a day basis. In some parts of the country surgeons find that 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the kind of cases done in Islington can be carried out on a day surgery basis. In Islington the percentage is still small. The most popular area of day surgery is still less than 20 per cent. of the total. So that there is scope for doing more.
In one branch of particular interest to the elderly, trauma and orthopaedics, there has been a substantial increase in the number of cases that the authority is able to look after. In 1982, the number of in-patient cases was 1,700. In 1985 it was up to 2,100. Therefore, many hundreds of additional elderly people in Islington have been assisted in that way.
The number of people being treated at home has remained steady. Health visitors and home nurses can give a good service. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the proportion of elderly in the neighbourhood is high. Perhaps it is slightly higher than the average because the death rate from ischaemic heart disease and cerebral vascular disease is lower than the national average. Islington is doing well on prevention, and I congratulate it on that.
As for the responsibility for the care of the elderly in Islington, and particularly in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he is right in saying that there is a frightful muddle. In addition to community services, Islington health authority is responsible for hospital services for the elderly in north Islington and also in Hornsey within the boundaries of Haringey health authority. Responsibility for hospital services for the elderly in south Islington and

the Finsbury area lies at present with Bloomsbury health authority. But because of the proximity of the hospital For acute admissions many patients are sent to St. Bartholomew's hospital, which is within the City of London and Hackney health authority. I count four health authorities so far, with the regional health authority taking a close interest in what goes on, of course.
I therefore wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 18 March 1987, in response to his letter, saying:
As you say, this would seem to be a matter for agreement between the various District Health Authorities concerned. I have therefore written to David Berriman, Chairman of the North East Thames Regional Health Authority, asking him to reply to you direct about this matter at the same lime as reporting to me.
I am therefore happy to recognise that perhaps the Department had some small role in encouraging the progress since February.
It is accepted that the provision of health services to the elderly people of south Islington is unsatisfactory. Discussions have been taking place for a short time now between officers of the three district health authorities mainly concerned—that is, Bloomsbury, City of London and Hackney and Islington—and the regional health authority about the provision of hospital services to the elderly of the area. Progress is being made in these discussions and there is now agreement in principle about how improved services should be provided in south Islington.
The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically what funds there will be in future for the health and local authorities. I shall give him some detailed figures for the health authority schemes that are under active discussion right now.
For local authorities as a whole this year I per cent. additional funding has been given for community care of all kinds, and that has amounted to some £27 million. How they spend it is up to them, because most local authorities resist being told specifically what to do. It is a convention that Ministers do not commit the Government too wildly about future funding in the weeks leading up to a general election. It will therefore depend, I suspect, on the outcome of the coming election. I have no doubt that whoever is the Member for Islington after the election is likely to be invited to the opening of some of the establishments and wards that I am about to describe. I hope that the hon. Gentleman may also have the opportunity of attending.
First, there will be £180,000 for community services in south Islington. I understand that the North East Thames regional health authority is permitting the Islington health authority to retain half the efficiency savings that will be developed this year, and that will be about £180,000. The emphasis will be on community services for the elderly in south Islington. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be in touch with the chairman of the health authority and will hear from him in some detail precisely how that additional money is to be spent.
Since, as the hon. Gentleman said, many elderly, acutely ill patients living in south Islington are referred to Bart's, which is in the City of London and Hackney health authority, the regional health authority has allocated £250,000 capital for an acute geriatric assessment ward at Bart's, which I have no doubt will give his constituents some of the finest care and treatment available in this country and possibly in the world. The ward will have up to 25 beds and it is planned to open it in 1989.
However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I will ask the regional health authority to give further consideration to the care of these patients in the intervening period. It may he possible to look after these patients in existing facilities that might be not quite as acceptable as the most modern facilities while the additional money is being spent. I undertake to ask the regional health authority to take a look at that.
In addition, the North East Thames regional health authority will be providing £400,000 for Southwood ward at the Hornsey central hospital, which should also be of assistance to elderly people in the neighbourhood. This is subject to detailed agreement on the content of the scheme.
There is also an urban programme bid in for a day hospital of which perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware. I understand that the Islington health authority has made an application to the Department of the Environment for urban programme funding for a 20-place geriatric day hospital at the Whittington hospital, at a capital cost of some £750,000—they do not come cheap in London—and I understand that this bid is currently being considered. The urban programme funding would provide day hospital facilities in the Archway wing at Whittington, where associated geriatric wards are already sited, so it would be a good location.
I was very interested to hear of Islington's joint policy on the care of the elderly and I know that a great deal of detailed work has gone into that. I have read the joint policy, and I hope that as much as possible will come to fruition. It is very encouraging to see evidence of such close co-operation between a district health authority and a local authority and such commitment to the development of community care services.
We think that in taking that work forward the district health authority could make rather more use of the performance indicators now available for services for the elderly and also of the balance-of-care planning system which has been developed by my Department and was made available from 31 March 1987. What I am saying is that there are now management tools available that may assist health and local authorities in the planning of their services, particularly when they are going into new areas, as these are hoping to do. I am willing to make officials' time available to the local health authority and the local council to ensure that they are able to plan their services along the best possible lines.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to debate this subject tonight. I look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman once again in the House, perhaps not for Islington—that will be for the voters of Islington to decide—but I am quite certain that it will be a Conservative Minister answering him.

National Health Service

Mr. Michael Brown: I am very glad to have this opportunity of initiating this Adjournment debate on increased expenditure in the National Health Service.
There is no doubt, even though some may be expressed on the Opposition Benches, that the statistics on the public expenditure that the Government have devoted to the National Health Service show that their record is second to none. I shall be adducing in my speech not only the statistics available nationally but personal experience as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, which covers the health authorities of Grimsby and Scunthorpe, of visiting those authorities and the authorities on a regular basis.
When I was elected to the House for the newly created constituency of Brigg and Cleethorpes on 9 June 1983, one of the first invitations that I received from the Grimsby district health authority was to attend the opening of the brand new Grimsby district hospital in July 1983. The opening ceremony was performed by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales and was attended by me, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and a large number of local dignatories. We had the opportunity to see for ourselves the results of the Conservative Government's commitment to the Health Service between 1979 and 1983. That hospital was built as part of the capital programme of the Conservative Administration elected in 1979.
I have no doubt that in the coming election campaign we shall see statistics relating to hospital closures in Great Grimsby. Of course, there have been hospital closures there; we closed down the disgraceful 19th century hospital and opened a brand new one. That is the point that has to be borne in mind when the Labour party draws attention to hospital closures. In my constituency, we have a spanking new district hospital which is second to none in the United Kingdom and probably in the whole of western Europe. It has magnificent facilities.
I visited that hospital when it was opened and have had personal experience of it since, and there is a very good story about this. Usually a Member of Parliament visits his local hospital officially to discuss matters with the hospital board, on a formal occasion, as a patient or to see friends or colleagues who are patients. Since 1983, I have had some experience of the work of the hospital. In January 1986, my next-door neighbour fell over and required immediate and urgent casualty treatment. I was with him when he arrived at the hospital, and I saw the magnificent work that was done to repair his injuries. He was not discharged that afternoon; he was told that, although his condition was not serious, he would be kept in overnight. That gives the lie to the claims about pressure on hospital beds. It was, after all, probably not technically or medically necessary for my neighbour to have been kept in overnight.
In autumn 1985, my agent suffered a mild problem with her leg. She was detained in Grimsby district hospital for several weeks. Again, it was probably medically possible for her to have been discharged a little earlier than she was. In fact, she spent several weeks in the hospital, and I visited her about twice a week.
There is no better way for a Member of Parliament to get the feel of how the Health Service is working than by visiting his agent in hospital. There she was, conducting some written business to the best of her ability, and transacting business with me. Everyone in the ward knew who she was and who I was, but no special treatment was given to her simply because she was my agent, and neither she nor I would have expected that.
Both my agent and I can only confirm the fantastic care and attention to detail in the wards of the Grimsby hospital. Visiting the hospital twice a week for five or six weeks, I got to know the sisters on the ward, and the catering and cleaning staff. The people at the reception desk get to know the regular visitor, and he has a feel for the way in which the hospital is working. I have nothing but praise for the way in which that hospital looked after my friend and agent—who, I am delighted to say, has returned to full and radiant health, and is looking forward to the next few weeks. Those weeks will be the greatest test of the success of Grimsby district health authority. I know that my agent will succeed in getting through the election campaign full of fitness and vigour, which I can only put down to the first-rate treatment that she received from the National Health Service in Grimsby district hospital.
As I said, my constituency also includes the Scunthorpe area health authority. When my constituents living in the Brigg area require hospital treatment, they go to Scunthorpe general hospital. Four or five weeks ago, I attended a meeting with the chairman of the health authority, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet), and we went to look at the massive new building expansion programme in progress at the hospital. Many millions of pounds are being invested in it, and a spanking new unit is shortly to be opened, within the budget and ahead of schedule. Scunthorpe district health authority is also responsible for the Boothferry area, and I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Minister was able to bring that capital building programme onstream. She wrote to me a few weeks ago to let me know of the success of that project. It looks as if the hospital will be built ahead of schedule.
That is evidence not of a Government who do not care about the National Health Service, but of a Government who are putting their money where their mouth is. In my constituency, which falls within those two health authorities, there is the brand-new hospital in Great Grimsby, the extension—involving many millions of pounds—of Scunthorpe general hospital and the brand new hospital at Goole.
Hon. Members may ask, "What about Glanford hospital? It is old fashioned, and it has been there for a long time." I visited that hospital a few weeks ago—again, because as a Member of Parliament I get to know people who need hospital care. The president of the Brigg and Cleethorpes Conservative women's advisory committee, who is now 90 years of age and has not been in the best of health during the past few months, was admitted in January to the Glanford hospital, which is a geriatric hospital. Outwardly, it appears to be a typical, old-fashioned cottage hospital, as we used to call them. Inside, however, a magnificent renovation programme has taken place, and the wards are bright, light and airy. Many of the geriatric patients are not in the best of health, being in their 80s and 90s, but the facilities in the hospital are remarkable.
That is a demonstration of what can be done, even to old hospitals. If it were ever suggested that that old-fashioned, 19th century hospital should be pulled down, there would be an outcry from the local people, who recognise the tremendous renovation work done by the Scunthorpe health authority, and the useful purpose that it serves as a local community hospital.
I have given no statistics; I have simply described the way that I perceive the district health authorities and their hospitals from the reactions of visiting friends who are receiving treatment, or from making formal visits to those hospitals. Nevertheless, statistics are important, and it is right that I should use this opportunity to tell the House how my constituency has come to possess those magnificent facilities.
In 1985, the National Health Service in England treated 4·5 million more patients than in 1978, Labour's last full year in office. Under the last Labour Government, the number of patients treated increased by only 1 million. The present Government have cut hospital waiting lists by 70,000, and waiting times for non-urgent cases are lower than at any time in the past 10 years. New initiatives have been announced for further reductions, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a while ago, with the establishment of the special fund over the next two years. I understand that the first allocation of £25 million in 1987–88 will enable an extra 100,000 patients to be treated.
I can confirm from the experiences that I have described this evening that the Government have embarked on the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the Health Service. Some 200 schemes, each worth more than £1 million, have been started and completed under the present Government, while 440 schemes are in the pipeline. More than 100 of them will be completed in the next three years alone. Spending on the NHS has increased from £7·75 billion in 1978–79 to an expected £20·6 billion in 1987–88, an increase in real terms of 31 per cent. Total spending will reach £22 billion by 1989–90, and in 1987–88 health authorities will be able to use an additional £150 million in cash savings from cost improvement programmes and efficiency measures. There are 63.000 more nurses and midwives than in 1978, and 12,000 more doctors and dentists.
However, the test is not necessarily how much is spent—I have described the massive expenditure under the present Administration—but the position from the point of view of the consumer. The most important health care statistic relates not to the amount of money that is spent on the service, or even to the number of beds, but to the number of patients being treated. Since the present Government came into office, the combination of more resources and better value for money has resulted in clear improvements in the quality of care provided. It is a record of which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of Slate and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can he justly proud.
I understand that 38,000 hip operations were performed in 1984–10,000 more than in 1978. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that the target for 1990 is 50,000. In 1984, 11,000 coronary artery by-pass operations were carried out—more than three times the number in 1978. The target for 1990 is at least 17,000. In 1984, there were 55,000 cataract operations—17,000 more than in 1978. By 1990, at least 70,000 cataract operations should be carried out. In 1984, 350 bone


marrow transplants were performed, 320 more than in 1978. By 1990, there should be at least 550. Hon. Members should read tonight's article in The London Evening Standard. It refers to the tremendous advances that are being made in bone marrow transplants.
This Government have also done a considerable amount to harness the benefits of modern technology. New treatments have been pioneered. The first ever heart and lung transplant was performed in 1983. There were 51 heart and lung operations in 1985. In 1986, laser treatment was used for the first time to unblock a coronary artery, and laser treatment of a different kind has meant that certain eye conditions, which previously were untreated, can now be cured. New technology is leading to the earlier detection of illness and to the greater chance of total recovery.
Under the last Labour Government, waiting lists increased by nearly 250,000 to a record 750,000. By September 1981, waiting lists had been reduced by over one-sixth, to 619,000. The House should not forget that the union action in 1982, which was officially supported by the Labour party, hit patients. The Government estimate that in England alone waiting lists grew, as a result of that action, by 140,000, but since then the total number of people on waiting lists has again decreased. In September 1986, the number of places on the in-patient waiting list in England was 681,000–70,000 fewer than under Labour. A special fund, amounting to £50 million over the next two years, is being used to reduce excessive waiting lists and times. The health authorities have already shown that there is a commitment to tackling this problem. This fund will enable them to make further progress, including a reduction both in the time that it takes to see a consultant and in the time before one can have an operation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have constantly reminded us, and it bears repetition, that the National Health Service is the largest employer in western Europe. In England alone, it employs 1 million people. Manpower costs account for 70 per cent. of the total running costs of the hospital service, yet no system of manpower planning existed until this Government introduced one. The proper planning of manpower and the additional resources that the Government have made available have resulted in a considerable expansion of both medical and nursing staff, while the number of ancillaries has been substantially reduced.
There is no better way for a Member of Parliament to get to know the attitude of staff—what they think about the National Health Service and what their commitment to it is—than by having friends in the National Health Service. I see the Conservative Association's constituency chairman in my parliamentary constituency of Brigg and Cleethorpes on a regular basis—indeed, almost every week. When I go to her house I meet her daughter who works as a nurse in the Grimsby district hospital. She keeps me informed of what is happening in the hospital, from the point of view of the staff.
Of course she deserves to be paid more than she has been paid in the past. I spoke to her soon after the Government's announcement that they were to implement in full the independent pay review body's recommendations. She was grateful to the Government for recognising

that nurses are an important group of professional people who are doing a very valuable job for the community. She does not intend to leave the NHS, and she drew my attention to an often quoted statistic—that many thousands of nurses are leaving the NHS every year.
Nurses, like the rest of us, grow older. At the age of 60, female nurses retire, and they show up in the statistics as leaving the NHS. I do not know whether this is unparliamentary, and if it is I shall withdraw the word, but we have to nail the lie that nurses are leaving the NHS because it is not rewarding them properly. The fact is that many nurses are leaving the NHS year by year because they are retiring, but others are coming into the profession.
We need to do everything possible to restore morale in the NHS. We must make nurses, whose training takes a long time, feel that they are being rewarded properly for their vocation. If the Government are able to do in the future what they have done in the past, the standard of morale in the NHS among ancillary workers and nurses will be one of which we can be proud.
I have in my hand a speech that was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to last year's Conservative party conference. There is much in it that deserves repetition. He set out the problem that the Government have to face: of the Labour party and the alliance not telling the people about what is happening in practice in the NHS. He said:
The fact is that more resources are being devoted to health than at any stage in the history of the health service—£11 billion a year more than when we came to office. The fact is that more doctors and nurses are working for patients than at any stage in the history of the health service…Above all, the fact is that we are providing more and better patient care than at any stage in the history of the health service—4½ million more patient cases being treated today than when this Government came to office.
My right hon. Friend then said:
against that background it is grotesque to claim that the health service in this country is in decline. It is selling the health service short. It is selling short the success of health service staff. It is selling short the achievement of this Government.
And it is selling short the achievements of my right hon. and hon. Friends who serve so well as Ministers in the Department of Social Security.
When the Opposition parties hear that in England last year we treated 1 million more in-patient cases than in 1978, they dismiss it as statistics. When they hear that we treated more than 400,000 additional day cases last year, they dismiss it as statistics. When they hear that we have provided for over three and a quarter million additional day patient attendances, they dismiss it as statistics. They forget that each of those 4½ million statistics is a personal story of care: of dedicated staff working night and day, of patients such as my agent having been relieved of pain and having been given renewed hope.
We bandy about statistics. I see statistics in terms of the experiences of my agent, my next door neighbour, my president of the women's advisory committee of the Conservative party in Brigg and Cleethorpes—three people I know whom I visited when they were in hospital. Those three people appear as statistics on sheets of paper. In hospital I saw them being given patient care by dedicated staff. They are the real figures of health care in this country. They show that health care has developed and, above all, they show that today the NHS, under this Government, is bringing more help to more people than ever before.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been carrying out her duties for some time. She is as familiar a figure in this House as a Government Minister as she is in the country. I hope and pray, on behalf of all those who need health care in this country, that my hon. Friend will be re-elected with a massive majority as the Member of Parliament for Derbyshire, South. The NHS needs her, just as it needs her colleagues in the DHSS. I hope that the next three or four weeks will pass quickly so that once again the NHS and those who use it will be able to have confidence in the fact that she will be responding to Adjournment debates in the excellent way in which she is responding to them today.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has shown us once again why he is regarded as a most conscientious and active champion of his constituents. Although he is absolutely right in saying that there has been a general increase in Health Service expenditure, I am in no doubt that the remarkable progress that has been made in his constituency and the surrounding area is, at least in part, a direct consequence of his advocacy of the needs of his constituency, which has achieved so much in such a short time. I congratulate him on the superb work that he has done for his constituents over the years.
The issue that I intend to raise may seem minor, but I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that it is a big issue in my part of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes rightly pointed out that there had been a substantial increase in Health Service expenditure. Although that is undoubtedly true, some problems remain. Despite the extra resources given to the Southend health authority, we have serious problems in recruiting nurses because of the high cost of living in our area. Will the Government therefore examine seriously the problems and difficulties of the recruitment of public servants in areas where costs are high and to which it is difficult to encourage people to come?
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes referred to the forthcoming election. In Southend, which I represent and where I live, many people will be thinking just as much about the future of Southend's radiotherapy unit as about the exchanges that will take place between politicians. We should not underestimate the concern felt in Southend about the recommendation by the regional health authority that the radiotherapy unit should be closed and an entirely new one built at Harold Wood about 35 miles away. I emphasise that this is not a party political point; all the parties in Southend and councillors who represent a wide spread of opinion have united in a campaign to persuade the health authority to change its mind and, if that is impossible, to persuade the Government to overturn what they regard as a cruel and costly recommendation.
I understand from a parliamentary answer that my hon. Friend the Minister gave yesterday that she has received about 1,700 individual letters on this subject. They represent not a concerted campaign of letter-writing but an expression of genuine concern from the people of the community. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that a massive petition sponsored by Southend's Evening Echo was delivered to the Secretary of State on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon).
Although extra spending is valuable, it can sometimes be misused. The regional health authority's recommendation is not a means of saving money or reallocating resources so that savings can be made. On the authority's own admission, the new proposal will cost an extra £4·5 million. Sometimes expenditure in itself does not solve problems; indeed, it can create new ones. It is proposed that a perfectly good, modern and popular unit with high standards should be closed and an entirely new one built to replace both it and others. The expert report submitted to the regional health authority appeared to recommend the retention of the Southend unit. In particular, the report stated that the authority's members might take the view that the Southend unit would provide a cheaper and more certain option. According to the report, Southend would be guaranteed 1,600 new patients per year, while the Harold Wood hospital would have no such guarantee, and might lose patients from Southend and district to London. The report made it abundantly clear that the closure would cost more money.
My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that the proposals are going through a long period of consultation. If, following that, our community health council puts forward objections, the region will have to reconsider its position. If it declines to do so, the matter will go to the Minister, and the Minister must decide.
The move would cause enormous hardship to many people undergoing radiotherapy, including a close relative of mine, who lives in Southend. Such patients are often not well enough to travel long distances. Sometimes the treatment can cause sickness, which would make a long journey unpleasant.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect on and answer two specific questions. First, is the Secretary of State absolutely convinced that the policy of centralising radiotherapy departments is in the public interest and in the interests of consumers? The policy decision was taken by the Government a long time ago. They thought that it would be better for the public if the various radiotherapy departments could be concentrated into larger units with 2,000 plus patients per annum.
The only advantage put forward for centralisation is that a larger concentration of medical expertise—perhaps a larger number of consultants—will be available. I suggest that any possible advantage stemming from that will he offset by the enormous hardship that will he suffered by patients having to travel long distances. If it was suggested that such patients should become in-patients, the extra costs would be substantial. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider whether this is a sensible policy or whether it should be reviewed. She will find that in every case, when centralisation has been proposed, it has caused anguish and concern.
Secondly, bearing in mind the strength of feeling in Southend and the fact that local people believe that they have an overwhelming case—happily, all the parties have worked together; no one has sought to take political advantage of it—will my hon. Friend assure us that if the matter is put on the desk of the Secretary of State one of the Department's Ministers will visit the Southend unit before making a decision? I know that Ministers are very busy people. They have to make important decisions and deal with a flood of correspondence and are sometimes called to the House to answer Adjournment debates which seem to go on for ever. However, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that, given the magnitude of this issue,


it is desperately important that the local community should know that the Minister has not just read a report or seen the figures but has seen the unit and spoken to those involved.
In the dying moments of this Parliament, I appreciate an opportunity to put to the Minister a matter which I believe is causing more concern in my area than many of the political points which will be exchanged during the campaign. This matter is not related to Southend alone. In his usual conscientious way, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is attending the debate to make it clear that he is interested in the subject and that his constituents, as well as mine, are concerned about the matter—as are those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) and of my right hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who has been so conscientious in advocating his constituents' interests in this regard. It would be beneficial if during the election campaign—as I have said, this will not be a political issue; all the parties will be expressing the same view—my hon. Friend the Minister could give an assurance that she will contemplate a review of the general policy of concentrating radiotherapy units and a clear assurance that before any decision is made a Minister from her Department will visit the unit and speak to patients, consultants and all those involved.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for raising this Adjournment debate and for allowing us to have one last opportunity of bringing home to the British people that over the past eight years the Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister care deeply for the health and welfare of the British people. No better example could we have of the caring Member of Parliament than my hon. Friend, who came to the House with a small majority but who will show how a small majority can become a large one at this general election when his constituents will show their appreciation for his great care. We are all grateful for this opportunity of placing the success of our policies before the country.
Whatever may be the case in other areas, Burton has no cause to complain about the Government's contribution to the health, welfare and caring for the people. The resources that have been channeled into our hospitals and primary care facilities have been enormous and have resulted in substantial improvements in health care. I am grateful, not only to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State from the neighbouring constituency of Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) for working so hard in the short time that she has been at the Department, but to the chairman of the South-East Staffordshire health authority, Mrs. Margaret Stanhope, the manager of the Burton hospitals, Mr. Tony Hill, the doctors, nurses, ancillary workers and appreciative patients.
As a result of the increased resources that have been made available in my area—the debate is about increased, not decreased, resources—in Burton many more patients are treated than ever before, many more staff are employed in direct patient care and there have been major hospital building improvements. The health

authority spend has risen from £13 million in 1978 to £30·5 million, which in real terms is an increase of about 16 per cent. and is still rising. That is a tremendous and praiseworthy achievement.
In 1978, 84,000 out-patients were treated, whereas in 1985 108,176 were treated in Burton's hospitals. The number of in-patient treatments has increased substantially from 16,500 to 23,000 over the same period. Naturally there are those who look, only superficially, and who seek to criticise where no genuine criticism is merited, saying, "But the waiting list has increased in Burton." It has indeed increased substantially, although the number of patients having to wait over a year for admission has decreased from a peak of 831 to 325, which is itself a small reduction on the number of people having to wait so long before the Conservative Government took power. But the reason why the waiting list has increased in Burton is that the standard of health care is so high that it has attracted cases from miles around, so that must be taken into account when we consider the length of the waiting list.
I do not intend to hold up proceedings a moment longer than necessary, but it is important to get the message across. We in the Conservative party are not all that good at doing that. We do not shout from the rooftops whenever we have these great successes, so I am taking this opportunity of doing so now.
In 1979, 1,137 nurses' and midwives' full-time equivalents were in post. The figure rose to 1,527 in 1986—an increase of 34 per cent. Therefore, more nurses and midwives are providing primary health care of the highest standard. The number of medical and dental staff also increased. The number of all staff rose from 2,379 in 1979 to 2,833 in 1986—an increase of 19 per cent. All those people are providing care of the most efficient and effective type for patients.
There is also a remarkable tale to tell about major improvements in buildings. In Burton we have a new clinic in Cross street, costing nearly £500,000 which I was privileged to open; a new clinic in Horninglow, costing £250,000, which I have been invited to open should the electors of Burton be sufficiently appreciative of the Conservative Government for their health provision to reflect that gratitude in support for me; a new clinic about to be built in Stretton which will cost £368,000; a new mental handicap unit which has cost £500,000; a new nurses' education centre about to be completed which has cost £1 million and will train new nurses—a vitally necessary ingredient in future health care; and a new small hospital about to be built in Uttoxeter, with 24 beds for the elderly and a new clinic. The authority has provided finance of £23,000 for the family practitioner committee to engage three doctors to spread its cervical cytology unit. A portable body scanner, costing about £50,000 to use, and a special care baby unit have also been provided.
Most impressive of all, we are about to have phase 2 of the Burton district hospital centre, which will cost £23 million. That will be a fantastic achievement after many years of waiting. We waited through Labour Governments who did nothing, but now the Conservative Government have provided the money and have been able to do so because their economic policies have been so successful.
The regional health authority was slightly over-optimistic about the date at which the building could start. It advanced the programme by about nine months in the expectation that 15 per cent. of the resources would be over-committed because slippage in construction work


had been a feature of previous programmes. But the Conservative Government have been so successful that the pace of building has picked up, major developments are ahead of target, and all the money has been used. Therefore, what was hoped to be a nine-month advance has been put back to the original planned date, and that is disappointing.
I am not sure what the Government can do about that, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister would say a little more about the "unconventional" financing which, providing it does not run across public expenditure controls, the DHSS is prepared to consider in some circumstances. It may be possible for the health authority to raise some extra finance on the private market which may enable the hospital to be built even faster than planned. That expenditure will mean an additional 380 beds, including a maternity and special care baby facility. It will include five theatre suites, an expanded X-ray department, a new pathology department, dining facilities, children's and antenatal clinic facilities, and expanded rehabilitation and day surgery departments. Health education too requires a large amount of space devoted to classrooms, discussion rooms, demonstration rooms, common rooms, first aid rooms, libraries, offices and all sorts of facilities that are necessary for the strengthening of the teaching of nurses and doctors in patient care.
I could go on and on because I could say something about the savings that have been made. I am told by the Burton hospital management that the privatisation of the cleaning and other services has resulted in huge savings of one third of a million pounds. The new kitchen is likely to save more than £100,000 a year. The laundry is now being looked into to see whether, in conjunction with the Mid-Staffordshire health authority, competitive tendering can produce substantial annual savings of over £100,000 which again will go into direct patient care.
It is a source of great pride to me that, when I go around the Burton hospital and talk to the doctors, nurses and, most important, to the patients, I hear how proud they are to be not only the servants of but the customers of the Health Service that the Burton health unit provides. It is because I feel so proud about it that I will be going into the election that much more confident than I. would otherwise be. I believe that the people in my constituency will show their appreciation of the large amount of care that the Conservative Government have lavished upon those in this quite small midlands town which has always dedicated itself to the production of wealth, through engineering and, above all, beer.
The good health of the Burton people, which I hope will continue, to a substantial extent is encouraged by a moderate consumption of the great product of the town of Burton-upon-Trent, which is renowned not only in Britain but throughout the world.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on securing the Adjournment debate and allowing us to place on record the Government's achievements in health care. I regret that recently the Labour health spokesman visited my constituency and quite deliberately aroused alarm and despondency among my constituents about health care in our area. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) will recall a meeting that she had with me a few weeks ago when she had the

pleasure of meeting the leaders of our local health authority. I think that she was quite delighted to see the achievements of those people in the Basildon area. There is no doubt that our health services are second to none. Our hospital waiting list is down. The whole breadth and style of health operations carried out during the past eight years has been unsurpassed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South might feel that she is being bullied on the matter, but I know that the hon. Member for Newham. South (Mr. Spearing) will agree that the suggested reorganisation of the cancer services in our area is quite extraordinary. It is without sense, without reason and above all will not help those who are suffering from this terrible problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the magnificant support that we have had in our area from the Evening Echo. I think that it was last week that it arranged for a delegation to meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and present him with a petition. I understand that my right hon. Friend looked very sympathetically at our case. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recall her words at the meeting, when she said that she would look most carefully at the whole question of travel and how that affects those patients who are being treated with radiotherapy.
I also place on record how proud I feel to represent a constituency where the voluntary sector contributed £500,000 to build St. Luke's hospice. It is a magnificant achievement and an example of the wonderful community spirit that we have developed in my constituency.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject that has been raised by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I have been most interested to hear the words of my other hon. Friends. By way of aside, may I say that my hon. Friends tonight have demonstrated the sense of the first past the post electoral system. Each of them is an immensely strong and supportive local member closely associated with his constituency. Were we to go to any sort of system such as proportional representation, the specific, caring and direct link that each of them has demonstrated tonight would simply vanish. For example, in Derbyshire, where we have 10 Members serving 10 quite different constituencies, we would have to make some effort to look after everybody and thereby, I suspect, nobody would be looked after terribly well. It is in the interests of the British people that we should have a Member for Southend, East, a Member for Southend, West, a Member for Basildon and so on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will, first, not turn her back on the Chair; and, secondly, will address the subject of the debate, which is not proportional representation, but expansion of the health services.

Mrs. Currie: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friends are all sitting behind me and I shall end up cross-eyed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes made a magnificent speech. I only wish that I could speak as well as that. He was quite right in the points that he


raised on the funding of the National Health Service, the staffing of the National Health Service and on the results in terms of patient care. I have checked his points, and he got them all right. Therefore, I shall not go through them again except to draw attention to the results in terms of the care of patients. I shall then indicate some areas where the Government are achieving firsts in patterns of patient care and in ways of running the Health Service.
My hon. Friend was quite right when he said that we are looking after 1 million more in-patient cases every year. We now have 6 million in-patients a year. He was quite right when he said that we are looking after more day cases. Within the next Parliament, I suspect that there will be a substantial increase in the number of day case treatments. We are now looking after about 37,500,000 out-patient visits every year. They are not all individual patients, because some come more than once, but that number has risen by 3 million since the Government took office in 1979. That is an astonishing increase. That is an improvement in productivity of which any business in the country would be proud.
We have also taken up the challenge that medicine offers. When I was young, people used to die of polio, but that disease has disappeared. When my father was young, people used to die from tuberculosis and, indeed, he nearly did. Our generation faces many and varied challenges. Some of those challenges are offered by improvements in medical sciences. For example, we find that the number of patients who received transplants last year was an all-time record. That included kidney transplants, which have now become routine. The number of patients receiving kidney treatment has doubled and we look forward to seeing more such treatments in future. During the lifetime of this Government there has been a threefold increase in heart bypass operations, and they have brought life once more to patients who would previously have been crippled by heart disease.
About 16 million more prescriptions are now dispensed, and that means that about 300 million items a year are now dispensed under the National Health Service. We have also provided about 5 million additional courses of dental treatment. I know that that will he of special interest to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has views on dental treatment. He knows that the figures for dental disease in his constituency are among the worst in the country. It is immensely useful that such a service is available and that people are making use of it.

Mr. Lawrence: As my hon. Friend tempts me, I cannot forbear from asking whether it is not right that in some of the regions in which there has been the sharpest decrease in dental caries in children's teeth there is no flouride in the water?

Mrs. Currie: Yes. I think that my hon. and learned Friend said that to the tune of about four hours and 35 minutes early one morning in a debate at which I was present. I do not tempt him to say it all over again.
We also find that patients are taking up other aspects of our care. About 2·5 million more sight tests are being performed on patients than there were in 1979. That is about 10 million sight tests a year, and it is immensely to the good to know that people are taking up that aspect of health care, which is free.
Perinatal death rates have dropped, and that is a tribute to everybody concerned with the service for mothers and babies. In 1978–79 the death rate for babies, either at birth or within the first week, was about 15 per 1,000 live births. The death rate was very high among some groups in our society, especially among the poorest mothers. The overall death rate has now dropped to fewer than 10 per 1,000, and it means also that about 3,000 more babies are alive year by year than in the 1970s. Most of them can expect to live and grow in a perfectly normal way. That means that about half of all those babies that are born weighing less than a kilogramme—less than the weight of a bag of sugar—can expect to survive and to lead a normal life. That is a remarkable record. What pleases me most is that the death rates for babies from the poorest social classes have improved apace with those elsewhere. The death rate in the lowest social class, social class V, is now only 12 per 1,000. Therefore, it is better than the average death rate of only five or six years ago.
One area of work that nobody ever mentions, but in which I take an interest, is the number of patients in mental handicap hospitals and units who are now able to take advantage of living in the community. Many of the constituents of my hon. Friends and myself are able to do that. Under this Government the number of such people in hospital has fallen by 22 per cent. Most of all, mentally handicapped children who do not require to be in hospital are no longer put there, and the number of mentally handicapped children growing up in hospital has dropped by 73 per cent.
That is a great achievement, but it is more than that, because it shows that this Government have taken on board in the Health Service a determination to break new ground.
This is the first Government who have seriously addressed themselves to prevention and good health. I am delighted that the impassioned pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes that we should have the freedom to smoke does not extend to encouraging his constituents to take up the evil weed. We hope to see prevention and health promotion making rapid progress in years to come. We have set up the new Health Education Authority and have taken on board some of the criticisms that were made about the functioning of the old Health Education Council, which the authority replaces. I hope that the messages will get across far more in future, especially to those who have perhaps not always taken them seriously.
The Government are the first to have taken women's health seriously, and this is the first Parliament in which there has been a Minister with responsibility for women's health. I am delighted to say that. I would not mind who was doing that, but I feel proud and honoured that I have been given that opportunity. The Government are the first in the world to develop a comprehensive nationwide breast cancer screening programme for women. That will tackle the biggest killer of women in early life and will be of immense help. We expect to save many thousands of lives, although, of course, it will be some time before the figures start to show.
It also means that we have under way a major programme for cervical cancer. By this time next year every health district in Britain—nearly 200 of them—will have a fully computerised call and recall system by which women at risk, and that means women between the


ages of 20 and 64, will be invited to have a smear test and can he shown to be in the clear from this particularly nasty little cancer. We feel that we can save lives in that way.
The Government are the first to take nurses' pay seriously and to set up a review body for nurses' pay. We recognise that nurses who do not strike have a major contribution to make to the Health Service, not just in terms of their skills and their numbers, but in terms of their approach and their professionalism towards their patients. When we take the latest award into account, we see that nurses' pay has risen by 30 per cent. in real terms. The last Labour Government saw a decrease of 21 per cent. in real terms in nurses' pay.
Exactly 10 years ago, in 1976–77, the Labour Government gave the nurses a miserable 5 per cent. cash uplift. That meant that in real terms the purchasing power of nurses' pay dropped by 10 per cent. in one year. We have done exactly the opposite. As I say, real pay has risen by 30 per cent. and we have deliberately slanted the rise towards the most experienced nurses, who we want to keep in nursing. Given the latest pay award, in real terms a sister's pay has risen by 40 per cent. under this Government. That is also a first. My hon. Friends have drawn attention to the fact that we are the first Government to take seriously management in the Health Service.

Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend talks about management, may I ask her whether she agrees that it is a matter of considerable importance that we have reduced a nurse's working week from 40 to 37½ hours? Is that not a substantial improvement, even on the wage increases?

Mrs. Currie: As usual, my hon. and learned Friend is right. As soon as we came to power in 1979 the nurses asked whether the working week could be reduced from 40 to 37½ hours. We did that and provided additional staff to make up the numbers. We have provided even more staff since to ensure that the Health Service can go on expanding in the way that we want it to expand. I thank my hon. and learned Friend for providing the opportunity for me to draw that to the attention of the House.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that statistic is the equivalent in real terms of increasing nurses' pay by about 5 or 6 per cent.? That action alone corresponds to that sort of increase in their real take home pay.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is right insofar as a nurse continues to work 40 hours and will be paid overtime. That tends to happen, especially in London. It means a substantial improvement in nurses' terms of service and recognises that they are professionals and skilled people. In that context, it is worth remembering that we have made vigorous efforts to improve the lot of junior hospital doctors and have banned the most onerous rotas, which required doctors to work very long hours. We are determined to make further progress on that as the opportunity arises. I take a strong view about doctors having to work very long hours.
The Government are the first to take seriously the problem of managing the Health Service. When I speak to business men's groups or business women's groups I am always able to say, "However big your business, mine is bigger because the National Health Service is the largest business in this country." We are the largest employer in

western Europe. The only thing to compete with us is the Russian army, which is not a volunteer army in the way that the staff of the National Health Service are. I can say to them, "However big the customer body you may deal with, ours is bigger."
We deal with the whole nation and with 6 million in-patients every year, as well as the other matters for which I have given figures. Therefore, management matters. We could not run the Health Service without good managers and staff. The Griffiths revolution—that is exactly what it is—means that the Health Service benefits from management expertise of a kind that matches that of our best businesses. We are beginning to see the results of that, and more of that is to come.
One example is putting the hotel services of the Health Service—catering, laundry and domestic work—out to tender. That is now saving the Health Service some £93 million a year, which goes straight back into health care. We are on target to reach £100 million a year very shortly. The National Audit Office, which looks at the figures carefully, tells us that we are likely to save £120 million.
Opposition Members—only one is here, but we are glad to see him as it means that we are not talking to ourselves—would do away with contracting out cleaning and catering services to competitive tender. They would have to find that £120 million from somewhere else, or they would not expand the Health Service, because that money would not be available.

Mr. Lawrence: That is what happened last time.

Mrs. Currie: That is exactly what happened last time.
The Government are the first to have taken primary care seriously. When we talk about the Health Service, an image of a hospital comes into our mind, but most people are cared for at home. Half a million people go to their general practitioners every working day. Through our expansion of that service we have more GPs with shorter lists to enable them to spend longer on each consultation talking to patients.
Last summer we issued a consultation document on primary care, which was the first time primary care had been looked at properly. The consultation period finished early this year and we are considering how to take that forward. We expect that it will result in legislation in the new Parliament. I am glad to see the attention that has been given to that work.
The Government will go to the country on their record, which in the Health Service is a matter of considerable pride and achievement. We have record funding, record staffing, record patient care and record satisfaction with the Health Service. Independent surveys show that approximately 88 per cent. of those who have been treated in the Health Service are satisfied, or very satisfied, with their care. We have 6 million satisfied in-patient customers in the Health Service.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend is aware that hon. Members receive letters of complaint about matters such as unemployment benefit and the tax office, but how many receive letters such as I have received which they pass on to Ministers, saying, "Dear Mr. Brown, I have just received treatment in the Grimsby district health centre and I was appalled at this, that or the other"? If I have received such a letter, it would have been only once or twice in the past eight years.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. We have 6 million satisfied customers who come out of hospitals and surgeries saying "Thank God", and quite right too. I wish, as he does, that occasionally they would say thanks also to the staff concerned. It has become fashionable to knock the Health Service. I would wish to see it become fashionable to praise the magnificent work done by the staff of the Health Service. I say that quite deliberately, because it is easy to provide the money, but difficult to translate that money into the top quality patient care that gives a Health Service that is the envy of the world. It would be wonderful if everyone could recognise that and recognise the excellent professional work that goes into making that so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) reminded me of the excellent meeting that I had with the chairman, general manager and others from his local health authority. They had asked for help as a result of what appeared to be a financial crisis at the end of last year. We demurred a little and encouraged them to look at their figures again. We suggested that the regional health authority might discuss some of their difficulties with them.
As a former district health authority chairman, I am reluctant to tell district health authorities how to run their services. By the time we got the meeting organised, they had sorted it out. The result was a magnificient litany of how problems had been faced and tackled with vigour and force, so the Basildon health service has improved and will continue to improve as a result of the learning process those people went through. I congratulate—I am sure my hon. Friend will join me—all concerned; I am sure that they serve his constituents with great distinction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon mentioned the Southend radiotherapy unit. In the past year we have heard about the strength of feeling over the Southend radiotherapy unit. Were there any doubt in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the strength of feeling, that was dispelled the other night when my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) went to him with a petition with over 100,000 names on it. My hon. Friend asked me some direct questions; for example, is the centralisation of radiotherapy still policy? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking a close interest in that. Such policies are always kept under constant review. My hon. Friend is quite right to demand that we look at the policy, which was drawn up in the days when equipment was rather different and it was necessary to serve a large catchment area with large and expensive equipment. I assure him that the Secretary of State will note his remarks and take them on board.
My hon. Friend asked about a visit. I thank him, on behalf of my colleagues, for the invitation. The thought of spending a day in Southend later this summer rather appeals. I know not whether the invitation will be accepted by me or another incumbent of this post, but I will ensure that the officials know about the invitation so that it can be passed on. I am sure that at least one of the officials would be delighted to accompany whoever goes to meet the very pleasant people of Southend and that they would have an interesting day finding out what is going on down there.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton lives in my constituency and has a habit of saying that I

am his Member, which occasionally produces some ribald comments, as one can imagine. He drew attention to one of the main products—not the sole one—of Burton-upon-Trent's strength, which is the beer. I have a confession to make. The beer is the reason for my being the Member for Derbyshire, South. When my husband and I were attending various interviews around the country some four years ago, we found ourselves sitting in south Derbyshire supping a little of the local brew. My husband is a Yorkshireman and something of a connoisseur of beer. He smacked his lips, looked at me, and said, "You are going to get this one, aren't you?". I tried that much harder, and I am delighted that the good people of south Derbyshire decided that I was what they were looking for, at least on that occasion. I hope that on 11 June they will again decide that I am what they want.
The hospitals at Burton-upon-Trent look after my constituents, and the staff are numbered among my constituents. I share my hon. and learned Friend's admiration for the quality of work in a place which has never claimed to be one of the great cities of our nation and which perhaps in the past lagged behind places such as Birmingham and Sheffield, which have taken the lead in health care.
Burton is showing us how to do it. It has a special quality and I am grateful for the opportunity of putting that on the record. Burton has the most friendly and good natured people in the Health Service. They create a caring atmosphere that is second to none. They deal with their patients with a sweet countenance and I am certain that that helps people to recover more quickly. They seek help, with confidence, earlier so that they can be properly treated. Patients are treated with great skill. I was at dinner the other night with Mr. Glick, a senior consultant. He told me that he now deals with about 40 per cent. of his work on a day basis, and so leads the country. He is showing other parts of the country, including areas that we discussed earlier, how it can be done.
We shall encourage the health authority to take note of what has been said about the new Burton hospital development. I take the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton about creative financing. The difficulty is that by whatever means it is done, and by whatever name it is called, it means an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement, which must be avoided. I am grateful for the opportunity to put on the record my thanks for the way in which my constituents are cared for. The Prime Minister has said that the National Health Service is safe in our hands. I know that my constituents are safe in the hands of the Burton hospitals and their staff.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will not mind that he has had to wait until last for a reply. His constituency is covered by the Grimsby district health authority and by the Scunthorpe district health authority. I am glad to say that a careful examination of statistics shows that health is safe with us in that neighbourhood. The picture there is remarkable.
Between 1982 and 1985 the number of front-line staff—doctors, nurses and others who deal directly with patients—in the Grimsby district health authority area increased from 1,461 to 1,665. That is a substantial increase. Finance increased from about £20 million in 1982–83 to £31·6 million this year. That is the cash allocation that we have made to the health authority. We could add to that savings, growth and development and


sales. The authority is, therefore, likely to spend even more than the £31·6 million. In addition, it has received £10 million in capital money over the past five years. My hon. Friend described precisely what it has done with that money. We are pleased at the progress.
More important than input is patient care. In Grimsby between 1982 and 1985 the number of in-patient cases increased from just under 20,000 to nearly 24,000. Day cases increased from 3,300 to 4,800. The number of out-patient attendances also rose substantially. They are statistics, numbers on a page, but they refer to real Grimsby people, who will be real voters on 11 June, when we hope that my hon. Friend's majority will be increased in the same way.
It is particularly pleasing that the main improvements have been across the board. In general medicine there has been a 55 per cent. increase in in-patient cases since 1982. In general surgery there has been a 27 per cent. increase and a 62 per cent. increase in the number of ear, nose and throat cases treated as in-patients.
It is not surprising that between 31 March 1983 and 30 September 1986 the in-patient waiting list in Grimsby dropped from 2,500 to 1,300. That figure is still too high, but it is pleasing that no urgent cases are now on the list for more than a month, and so urgent cases are being seen much faster. The number of non-urgent cases waiting has also dropped substantially, and the number waiting for more than a year dropped between 1983 and 1986 from 850 to just over 100. That is still too high, and I shall not be satisfied until the figure is nil, but that shows the improvement in the neighbourhood and it is a tribute to the hard work of the staff.
The same picture is to be found in the Scunthorpe district health authority area. It cannot be entirely a coincidence. Such figures apply all over the country. In Scunthorpe the number of front-line staff rose from 1,287 in 1982 to 1,401 in 1985. More staff are now available to look after patients. Spending rose from just a shade under £20 million in 1982–83 to £27·6 million this year. That is a substantial increase. Added to that are savings and land sales.
In-patient activity also increased from 20,000 in-patient cases a year in the early 1980s to the current 25,000. Day

cases have also increased, as have out-patient attendances. I am pleased that in the Scunthorpe district no urgent cases—none at all—have to wait for more than a month. It seems that there are no urgent cases on the waiting list. The staff simply deal with them. That has been so since 1985. It is a considerable improvement. Similarly, the number of non-urgent cases has dropped sharply from over 5,000 to 2,900. The number on the list for more than a year has also diminished to 801. That is still not good enough. Perhaps that health authority will take the opportunity to look at what it is doing and ensure that people do not have to wait any longer in Scunthorpe than they do in Grimsby.
It is pleasing to note that in Scunthorpe the waiting list for trauma and orthopaedic patients has decreased. A total of 739 people were waiting for non-urgent trauma and orthopaedic treatment, such as hip operations, but that number has dropped to about 400. That has improved the lives of hundreds of people who are now mobile as a result of hip operations.
This has been an extremely useful debate. We have been talking about health for about two hours. I note with interest the empty Opposition Benches. Not a single Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has bothered to turn up. Despite all the trumpeting about health care and what the Labour party intends to do, the Labour spokesmen on health are elsewhere. The House of Commons is still the most important place in the country to discuss health. The voting that allows us to spend all the extra money on the Health Service—to improve nurses' pay, to allocate more staff and to put up all those lovely new buildings—is done in this Chamber. Where are the Opposition?
What about the alliance Members? They are probably allied right now, because all of them are not here. We wonder how seriously they care about the basic work of running a good, modern Health Service and to improving health services for all.
There is one Labour Member here, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who intends to raise an Adjournment debate in his own right. I look forward to answering that debate. I believe that the Health Service is not only safe with the Conservatives, but that under no other Government could the record that has been described be achieved.

London Ambulance Service

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The tradition and practice of the House has been to express grievances on the Adjournment. The Minister's closing remarks in the previous Adjournment debate do not accord with the traditions of this place. The Minister knows very well that when private Members raise Adjournment debates, whether it is the first, second or, as in this case, the third Adjournment, it is not the custom for Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to be present, nor is it the custom for other hon. Members, other than by arrangement, to be present to express their views. We have had not a formal debate on health, but a debate on the Adjournment in which individual hon. Members have excercised their right to raise particular items. It so happens that three of those items have been about health.
My Adjournment debate relates to the out-patients ambulance service in London, or, perhaps more accurately, the non-emergency ambulance service in London. I hope to be typically robust because this Adjournment before grievance is not just for this week or this day, but is, in effect, the Adjournment before grievance for this Parliament.
In the Minister's closing remarks in the previous debate she made the claim, often repeated, about the Health Service being safe in the hands of the Government. However, my speech will show that the Health Service is clearly not safe in their hands. It is true that the Minister and her hon. Friends reeled off a host of statistics in the last few minutes of the previous debate. They have used the usual public relations trick of semi-truths. In the same way, the Minister referred to the empty Benches on the Labour side and implied that we are not concerned about health. That is not the case, but such was the implication. Semi-truth is of course only a next door neighbour to an economy of the truth.
I will seek to prove—I challenge the Minister to deny it—that my thesis and that of my hon. Friends about the Health Service is correct. Indeed the Minister has already accepted that. A written answer on 5 March 1987, column 679, showed that there had been a 41 per cent. reduction in the number of non-emergency cases carried by the London ambulance services between 1984–86. That is a shocking figure. The fact is that the administrative edict that brought about that savage reduction was not originally from Alexander Fleming house or from Health Ministers or the Department of Health and Social Security. It came from a Rayner-style edict from No. 10. That is a remarkable example of the elected dictatorship that is now on offer before the electorate.
In an Adjournment debate on 31 October 1986 I showed how that reduction had come about. Since then I have received further figures and further answers from the Minister. I wish to draw the attention of the House to those answers to make this issue a major matter of grievance. On the occasion of that Adjournment debate the Minister—I am glad to see that she is present because she has to answer for these matters—admitted that some 10,500 fewer walking patients were being transported—a reduction of 44 per cent. The Minister said:
I am more than happy at that development."—[Official Report, 31 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 666.]

What greater expression of ministerial responsibility and approval can there be?
On that occasion, by way of assurance, the Minister told us that the acute ambulance service, the vehicles that run through the streets with sirens sounding and lights flashing, were being protected. The Minister had said in an earlier debate that if someone suffered a heart attack at Waterloo they would be taken right to Barts. However, if one of my constituents has a heart attack in Newham, what chance is there that Newham hospital's accident department—opened less than two years ago by the Queen—will be open? That accident department has been closed twice since Christmas, once for 40 hours and once for 60 hours. Even if one is transported in an acute ambulance, one is not necessarily transported to the emergency department of a new hospital, manned and ready for action.
There are some 350 acute ambulances in London and they travel some 3·5 million miles a year. There are 230 tail-lift non-emergency ambulances and some 400 so-called "coach" ambulances. They travel 7·5 million miles a year—twice as much as the acute ambulances. However, it was those non-emergency ambulances that were cut by 41 per cent. I am sure that the public are not aware of that reduction because the administration of the London ambulance service is arcane almost to the point of imbecility. It is run by the London ambulance services, quartered at Waterloo, and it used to be part of the Greater London council services for London. The ambulance service was transferred to the management of the South-West Thames regional health authority, which manages it on behalf of the four regional health authorities of London that meet in the centre of the city.
The London ambulance service has, quite sensibly, four district organisations that relate to the district health authorities. Therefore, the chain of accountability to the House is complex almost to the point that the service is not easily accountable other than in a debate of this nature.
As I explained in the previous Adjournment debate, several years ago, a gentleman from the East Birmingham health authority, Mr. Payne, was asked to make a survey on how non-emergency ambulance services could be provided more efficiently. One person, one study, but consider the results. In the course of that study Mr. Payne said that there was some misuse of the non-emergency ambulance service. I am prepared to believe that. However, when a non-emergency ambulance takes somebody to a hospital or a day centre that action must be certified by a medical person. As a taxpayer I am happy to give that medical person a little bit of leeway. Mr. Payne estimated that there was a 4 to 10 per cent. misuse of the service. He suggested that a possible saving of £9·4 million could be made. In London—the Minister is aware of this because she answered one of my questions on the matter—there is no evidence of such misuse, but the cuts went ahead.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Not now there isn't.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister may say that, but I asked a question about previous misuse. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will correct me when she replies.
Mr. Payne—I do not wish to single him out unreasonably as the civil servant responsible, but his name


was given on the document—presented his paper to the Minister. The Minister agreed that the way to reduce the cost was to make each district health authority in some way accountable for the ambulance service it received. Monetarism or Marks and Spencerism may make sense in the retail business, but it was pushed on to the Health Service.
During the debate on 31 October, in column 659, I quoted from the document that had been produced. I wish to do so again because it makes the case clearly. It states:
It would he open to districts to buy in part of the service from other public agencies or the private sector if this was more cost-effective, providing the quality of the service was maintained.
In other words, local health authorities were being given some sort of quota, in terms of mileage, or of financing, or the number of ambulances available. If they wanted to buy in more, they had to obtain them from the private sector. I shall be saying more about that anon, because the writing is clearly on the wall.
The way to get the costs down was by tightening up the finances. I have no objection to that, provided that the level of services for the people who need them, and their cost effectiveness and efficiency, were maintained. However, I do not necessarily think that they have been. Last summer, as everyone involved in the service in London knows, there was chaos. A letter went out from the South-West Thames regional health authority asking district health authority chairmen to cut demand by 40 per cent. It was an appealing letter, which read like a charitable letter in reverse. So the service was reduced. The results for people such as those in Newham, which is the area with the fewest cars in south-east England, were catastrophic. Those people are the least able to get out on their own, and the least able to be driven by kind neighbours—not that the people in Newham are not kind, but they do not have the same number of cars as people elsewhere. The bus service there is now under threat, and chaos, hardship and heartache have ensued.
One might say that such a threat was not intended; but its results were malign, vindictive and inhuman. The hon. Lady and the Government, who were responsible for them, may say that they did not know that that was going to be the result. However, anyone would know that a 40 per cent. cut, which was the aim, would result in those sorts of difficulties; and so it turned out. In a question that I asked on 6 November 1986—I shall read it because the hon. Lady disputed the point—I asked the Secretary of State:
what evidence he has received, concerning alleged non-appropriate use of the non-emergency ambulance services in London; and by what percentage those calls have changed between 1984 and 1986.
Referring to my accusation, the hon. Lady said:
We have no information on alleged non-appropriate use of non-emergency ambulance transport."—[Official Report, 6 November 1986; Vol. 103, c. 598.]
It is clear that all this was not even based on Mr. Payne's call for a 9 to 10 per cent. reduction. It was quite baseless, apart from the desire to save money. And the Government say that the Health Service is safe in their hands.
What were the actual reductions? The hon. Lady provided me with a table, published in Hansard at columns 679 to 682 on 5 March 1987. The reduction in non-emergency services between the years 1984 and 1986 was 41 per cent. in London. The figures were further broken down into four divisions of the London ambulance service.

I asked about the quarterly and the annual reductions. It is ironic that the biggest reduction of all—45·5 per cent.—is in the north-west division, which covers the London borough of Barnet and the constituency of the Prime Minister. Let her go to her constituents and say, "The Health Service is safe in my hands." The hon. Lady's figures show a reduction in non-emergency ambulance services of 45 per cent. in the Prime Minister's area.
Those are the facts—not the half truths that we heard in the hon. Lady's PR speech of a few minutes ago. I have challenged the hon. Lady to deny those facts.
There is more: in addition to the out-patients who are carried and who are getting better, there are out-patients who are sick and need treatment—people who, perhaps, come out of hospital rather too soon and are taken back. Out-patients are not necessarily fit and well. In addition to such people, who are carried by the London ambulance service, the districts bring in other people by services which are not run by the LAS. These are the so-called indirect services. Old people are taken by minicabs, which are difficult to get into and out of. Minicab drivers may be sympathetic and willing, but they are not skilled That service is growing. An indirect service may be run by a contractor, too—that is being encouraged, and the increase in indirect services is quite startling. Of course, a relatively low figure is involved. It started with 212,000 miles in 1984 and increased to 346,000 miles in 1986—an increase of 63 per cent. So the public sector service in the Prime Minister's area has declined by 45 per cent., and the increase in indirect services in the whole of London has been one of 63 per cent.—services bought in from outside contractors. That is the trend.
We know that the Government, if returned to office, will privatise as much as they can. Do they wish further to privatise the non-emergency ambulance services in London, as distinct from the acute services? They appear to want to do so, because they are increasingly separating personnel.
How have the Government got away with this in the minds of the public? What about all those cancellations about which we heard? Last summer, there was chaos, and there were cancellations. In reply to questions that I have asked her, the hon. Lady has said that, in Newham hospital and in the Newham district health authority, there are now no cancellations worth mentioning. That, again, is a PR fact: we are all right; the Government say that the services are slightly increasing.
I have made inquiries about that and I understand that, because there was so much chaos, the medical staff concerned said that they could not tolerate the situation. Out-patient lists were in chaos, and people were missing appointments. An old lady who had missed eight in a row wrote to me. So the authorities concerned understandably tightened up the criteria for those whom they certificated as being able to be called for by an ambulance. In other words, what they did—as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I, or even the hon. Lady would have done—was say that, as the ambulances were not available, they would ensure some sort of continuity in the service. Consequently, they upped the limit, which is, to some extent, variable, as it is a matter of judgment. That is what I have been told has happened.
Other matters, too, have been dealt with in the way that anyone with common sense would deal with them. A lady, for example, who comes in once a week might be asked to come in once a fortnight. The criteria of need and


requirement have now been geared to different considerations. The administrative impact of this lack of flexibility has resulted in a change in the criteria. There has been a squeeze and, as a result, no doubt the costs have fallen, but the price has been paid in the quality of service that dedicated people can give to their patients.
Another change has been the introduction into this important service of 200 part-time staff. The hon. Lady is nodding her agreement. Two hundred part-timers are now engaged in the London ambulance service and more may be recruited. I have been told—I do not have any figures to prove it—that it is possible for someone to do two part-time jobs: the economics are such that one starts early and takes people to the day centre or hospital, then has a long break, and then does a second part-time shift in the evening. This is a lowering of the standards of the staff, their expectations and their training.
I have a number of questions to ask the Minister. First, is it the DHSS's intention as it is now constituted further to separate acute ambulance services from non-emergency services in London? The hon. Lady might not be able to give an undertaking tonight but she might be able to write a letter tomorrow or on Monday to that effect. Secondly, how is the availability of money for ambulances calculated for each district health authority? In other words, what is the base? Is the Payne memorandum, which came from Downing street and which might be softened to some extent, still the basis of policy for the DHSS? Thirdly, is it the Government's policy to permit the contracting out of ambulance services to small firms or individuals?
On 6 May I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services
what tests of competence or other conditions relating to standards of remuneration and safety arc applied by district or regional health authorities when using ambulance contractors for non-emergency ambulance services.
The answer read:
Health authorities are responsible for the day-to-day management of National Health Service ambulance services. It is for them to arrange the most appropriate, efficient and cost-effective means of transport for each of the patients the ambulance service is asked to convey. This may involve the use of taxi, hire car or other private contractors as well as volunteers. Standards of safety and payment to private contractors are not set centrally: health authorities are responsible for negotiating contracts locally and for setting standards of service, patient care and safety."—[Official Report, 6 May 1987; Vol. 115, c. 429.]
That is a recipe for undermining the proud standards of the London ambulance service. As Winston Churchill said in this Chamber, or rather its predecessor, the bad contractor drives out the good and the worst drives out the bad. How can we expect district health authorities, with all their problems, to monitor and apply standards of decent employment and decent standards of safety? That should be done by the London ambulance service as a whole, and that is what has been done. We are faced with a recipe for undermining the quality of the service and the London ambulance service itself. I ask the Minister to deny that that will be the result of that which is proposed. We know what is happening within the bus service—I shall not pursue this—and we know also what happened on Monday. We do not want that to happen to our ambulance service. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister, the

Government generally and, self-admittedly, the Minister, are driving the London ambulance service in that direction.
Does the Prime Minister care? On 2 April my hon Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) asked the Prime Minister about hot beds—two patients and one bed—in Barts. There is one person in the bed while the other is up and out of it during the middle of the day. The Prime Minister said that the practice of day surgery was welcome and claimed that expenditure in London on the Health Service had increased under her Government. She may make that claim, but the expenditure on the London ambulance service has dropped. That has been determined by what she has brought out of No. 10 Downing street. It might be said that it is only the ambulance service that has been so affected, but both the staff and the customers—our citizens—have been undermined, demoralised and dismayed.
This trend has been accompanied by a regrading of staff and a change in their terms and conditions of service. There has been a change in negotiating patterns and a reduction of public resources. There has been a threat of privatisation and in some services there has been an accompanying lack of public repute. Is it a coincidence that what has happened in the London ambulance service has been repeated to some extent in other public services such as schools, the DHSS, universities, polytechnics and sectors of the Civil Service and local government? The same formula has been applied time and again.
There is an epitaph for this Administration that comes from the experience of the London ambulance service. If anything, we have a parable, but it is almost the reverse of that of the Good Samaritan. It is the obverse of what this Administration started with following a bizarre quotation on the steps of No. 10, but one which is well known. The example is the London ambulance service, but many other areas of the public service provide it because the same formula has been used. I give the Government an epitaph as they finish their administration. It is as follows: Where there was harmony, we have brought discord; where there was truth, we have brought error; where there was faith, we have induced doubt; where there was hope, we have brought despair.
The case in respect of the London ambulance service is proven—it is clear that the service is unsafe in the Prime Minister's hands. If that is true of the London ambulance service, it is true, as I have tried to prove, of the Health Service and of the nation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for raising once again the issue of the London ambulance service.
The new salary structure for ambulance men came into effect in March 1986 and it changed radically the pay arrangements for ambulance personnel. It provided an opportunity for all ambulance services to rid themselves of inefficient working practices. With the introduction of the new structure, the London ambulance service took steps to improve the front line—in other words, the emergency service that it provides. This meant that temporarily staff resources had to be transferred from non-emergency services to be redeployed on front-line work.
The South West Thames regional health authority, which manages the London ambulance service on behalf of the four Thames regions, took immediate steps to increase recruitment within the non-emergency service to make up for the shortfall. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the number of part-time employees who have been taken on, and he was right when he spoke of about 200. Part-time employees were introduced into the service a year ago to try to enable the work force in as flexible a way as possible to cover the different and increasing demands made on the service. I see nothing wrong with that.
Since March 1986 there has been a significant increase in the number of full-time ambulance staff employed. Almost every month last year about 30 recruits were undertaking training within the London ambulance service. There was a low turnover and the results have led

to a substantial increase in staff. I believe that we are seeing the benefits of a sustained recruitment campaign, and I am sure that the hon Gentleman's concerns will be met in this way. I hope that he will accept that I shall scrutinise the Official Report and write to him on all the other issues which he has raised at very short notice this evening.

Mr. Spearing: Before the Minister sits down——

Mrs. Currie: I have sat down.

Mr. Spearing: —will she accept for the record that there was notice last week of this debate, which was given to the Minister for Health? I am grateful to the hon Lady for saying that she will write to me, but I am sorry that she will not answer my questions this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eight o'clock.